Celtics vs Spurs

[TheTruth34]

As a Celtics fan watching the Spurs play well in the Finals, you can't help but make the obvious comparisons  (KG and Duncan, Rondo and Parker, Ginobili and Pierce, etc).  Two teams with older cores, supplemented with good young role players.  It's hard not to ask the question: Isn't this what the current version of the Celtics aim to be? A perennial 50+ win team that consistently goes deep in the playoffs, a true contender.

There's some clear differences.  The Spurs do not dismiss the regular season. They play a disciplined brand of basketball on both ends of the floor and are pretty consistent.  Luck has clearly played a part as they have been able to withstand major injuries (for the most part).

I've been of the mind that it's pointless to move forward with the current core this off-season, given what we've observed this last season. Maybe that's wrong. But I'm interested in hearing the forum's take on this. Is it fair to say that the teams are close in talent levels?  Can the difference be attributed to coaching?  Does the supporting cast of the Spurs provide the edge? 

[Ogaju]

The Spurs has a coach worthy of the accolades. Oh and he looks like he wants to be there too.

[rondohondo]

add a legit big man to pp,kg,rondo, and green , and I think the c's are right there

Bos sends Bradley , Bass,#16, china 3 (non guaranteed)
Utah sends : Big Al

PG: Rondo   / Terry
SG: Lee     / Pietrus
SF: Green   / PP
PF: KG      / Sully
 C: Big Al  / Melo ?

[LooseCannon]

Does the supporting cast of the Spurs provide the edge?

Let's took at how the Spurs have acquired some bench players.

Danny Green - second-round pick who played one season then was cut in preseason by a team that won only 19 games.  Signed by the Spurs, cut and signs with the D-League, re-signed a few months later by the Spurs.

Gary Neal - undrafted small school player, plays three years in Europe, signed as a free agent

DeJuan Blair - undersized 6'7" PF with bad knees who slipped into the second round

Matt Bonner - unathletic big with a perimeter offense

The Spurs have been better at looking for role players off the bench who fit the team's system.  I think Ainge makes the mistake sometimes of going after players with the archetypal body or athleticism or resume.  For example, I don't think Doc made a mistake in not playing Darko Milicic so much as Ainge made a mistake in signing Darko when it seemed very likely to me that Darko wouldn't play because he didn't fit into Doc's system.  Either there are some hidden tensions between Danny and Doc over the style the team should be playing or Danny thinks Doc is a miracle worker who can fix broken players.

[Boris Badenov]

1. The Spurs have been better in the draft. Danny is very good but the Spurs are just outstanding at spotting talent particularly late in the draft. Ginobili, Parker, Splitter, Leonard, Blair...etc.

2. The Spurs, like LooseCannon said, are good at not over-shooting with supporting players and just finding good solid role-player types. (I think more safe choices and fewer swinging-for-the-fence types like Shaq, JO etc. would have made us better off).

3. They assembled their "Big Three" much earlier on, so those guys have played together longer and are still playing at a higher level than ours.

Only #2 is something you can lay at Danny's feet, I think, in terms of running the organization. We've done well in the draft, and expecting Spurs-level success is just too much IMO.

And, the Spurs got to draft Tim Duncan as a rookie...Danny had to build his team from a much lower talent base. In some ways that's just as impressive.

[Ogaju]

1. The Spurs have been better in the draft. Danny is very good but the Spurs are just outstanding at spotting talent particularly late in the draft. Ginobili, Parker, Splitter, Leonard, Blair...etc.

2. The Spurs, like LooseCannon said, are good at not over-shooting with supporting players and just finding good solid role-player types. (I think more safe choices and fewer swinging-for-the-fence types like Shaq, JO etc. would have made us better off).

3. They assembled their "Big Three" much earlier on, so those guys have played together longer and are still playing at a higher level than ours.

Only #2 is something you can lay at Danny's feet, I think, in terms of running the organization. We've done well in the draft, and expecting Spurs-level success is just too much IMO.

And, the Spurs got to draft Tim Duncan as a rookie...Danny had to build his team from a much lower talent base. In some ways that's just as impressive.

yeah lets blame the GM, coaching has nothign to do with it. Come on Danny go and find Doc another BIG 3. He needs ready made players you know.

I guess Popovic's coaching has noting to do with Spurs success. He just happens to have stumbled on the perfect role players.

[pearljammer10]

Pierce > Manu by a small margin. Both bring different aspects to the game.

Parker > Rondo by a small margin only because of his shot on offense and ability to his the big shot in the clutch

Duncan >>>>>>>> Garnett

Spurs Bench >>>>>>> Celtics Bench

Pop > Doc

Spurs role players > Celtics role player for the system they are in.

[ManUp]

1. The Spurs have been better in the draft. Danny is very good but the Spurs are just outstanding at spotting talent particularly late in the draft. Ginobili, Parker, Splitter, Leonard, Blair...etc.

2. The Spurs, like LooseCannon said, are good at not over-shooting with supporting players and just finding good solid role-player types. (I think more safe choices and fewer swinging-for-the-fence types like Shaq, JO etc. would have made us better off).

3. They assembled their "Big Three" much earlier on, so those guys have played together longer and are still playing at a higher level than ours.

Only #2 is something you can lay at Danny's feet, I think, in terms of running the organization. We've done well in the draft, and expecting Spurs-level success is just too much IMO.

And, the Spurs got to draft Tim Duncan as a rookie...Danny had to build his team from a much lower talent base. In some ways that's just as impressive.

yeah lets blame the GM, coaching has nothign to do with it. Come on Danny go and find Doc another BIG 3. He needs ready made players you know.

I guess Popovic's coaching has noting to do with Spurs success. He just happens to have stumbled on the perfect role players.

Did you read the post or just skim through it? I don't see anyone pointing blame. It's just an acknowledgement of how amazing the Spurs management has been.

[LooseCannon]

I guess Popovic's coaching has noting to do with Spurs success. He just happens to have stumbled on the perfect role players.

Popovich has a good system.  The Spurs GM has been better at getting role players who fit his system than Ainge has been at getting role players who fit Doc's system.  Ainge would have been smarter to get players such as a big with legitimate three-point range and a low-turnover, pass-first backup point guard than some of his actual choices to fill out the bench.

For Doc's system, I think it's better to give him mobile bigs who can defend out to the perimeter.  Big bigs, small bigs, it doesn't matter.  If you give him immobile 7-footers, he's going to go small rather than change his system to incorporate size.  So, if you give him really big bigs, don't get the kind who just clog up the middle because they never leave the paint.  Give him someone who won't make you cringe if he ends up defending Chris Bosh one-on-one near the perimeter on a switch.