Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Larry H. admitted he came close to firing Sloan a few times. Imagine had he gone through with it and brought in Pops to run the organization.
Pops just has something elite that most coaches don't have.
Exactly. Say what you will about tanking to get Duncan - and I think that was wrong. But Popovich has always had a great eye for talent: Leonard, Splitter, Green, Blair, Neal, etc. He just adds different pieces to his core of Parker, Duncan, and Ginobli. Jazz were never quite able to do that with the Stockton, Malone and Hornacek model. Utah was getting older players at the end of their careers. Spurs generally add young talent that can explode - and come at a huge discount over aging veterans.Sloan is a good coach, but I don't think he would have done as well with that Spurs team.
Pops just has something elite that most coaches don't have. Even a HOF like Jerry.
Karl Malone? John Stockton? Both coaches have had elite players. Pops has translated that into titles. Don't get me wrong; I still think Sloan was a helluva coach. He just wasn't on the same level as Pops, Phil Jackson and a few others. With Popovich, I believe a big part of his success is due to his superior GM skills. After all, he was in the FO before stepping down to coach. Personnel, particularly the drafts in the late 80's and 90's has always been an issue with the Jazz. A ten year span when the best the Jazz ever did was Ostertag, Blue Edwards and Bryan Russell. Just think how good the team would have been had Utah found 2 or 3 more rotation players.Tim Duncan?
Why, DJ? How many titles does Popovich have? How many titles does Sloan have? Pops has been a master at adding valuable role players to the roster, getting the Spurs over the top several times. Sloan allegedly had as much say in personnel matters as any Jazz GM. And drafts and FA signings during his time with Utah have often been abysmal.
Tim Duncan?
Exactly. Say what you will about tanking to get Duncan - and I think that was wrong. But Popovich has always had a great eye for talent: Leonard, Splitter, Green, Blair, Neal, etc. He just adds different pieces to his core of Parker, Duncan, and Ginobli. Jazz were never quite able to do that with the Stockton, Malone and Hornacek model. Utah was getting older players at the end of their careers. Spurs generally add young talent that can explode - and come at a huge discount over aging veterans.
These threads are becoming funny.
I completely disagree. Pop has two post lottery picks that he helped become All-Stars. So did Sloan. Pop routinely makes ok players look like very good role players. So did Sloan. What's the difference between the two? A top 5 pick.
Give Sloan a top 5 pick and take Duncan away from Pop, and the argument is completely different.
I completely disagree. Pop has two post lottery picks that he helped become All-Stars. So did Sloan. Pop routinely makes ok players look like very good role players. So did Sloan. What's the difference between the two? A top 5 pick.
Give Sloan a top 5 pick and take Duncan away from Pop, and the argument is completely different.
Try two top 5 picks. It's kind of funny how everyone forgets David Robinson.
Take away Duncan and give the Jazz that tank job and you would have never known who Poppovich is. Jazz didn't have a Ginobili either, they had a shooting guard playing in a point guard's body. Sloan was hamstringed by management unwilling to spend, by the market, and with contract after contract.
They'll never convince me Poppovich is better. Nor Phil Jackson. Never. It's a ludicrous notion that has no place on a Jazz message board.