Difference Between Celtics and Spurs

[PosImpos]

The Spurs and Celtics are two of the oldest teams in the league, right?

Wrong.  Well, half-wrong.  The Spurs are actually a relatively young team, outside of their core.  That's how they've been able to extend their window of relevancy well beyond what anybody has expected -- they've acquired and developed young players.

Can you name any young players the Celtics have acquired and developed into rotation contributors since the Big 3 era started?  The only young guys on the team now contributing are Rondo and Bass.  Rondo was here prior to the Big 3, and Bass was acquired by trading Glen Davis, a player acquired at the same time as Garnett and Ray Allen.

If not for the unfortunate situation with Jeff Green, we could point to him, but even there it's a case of trading one young asset developed since before the Big 3 era for another young asset.

The best organizations that stay relevant year after year do so because they can spend, bring in free agents, or consistently acquire, develop, and stockpile young talent.  The Celtics can spend.  They can bring in free agents as long as the team is relevant, but not big name ones, and they haven't been able to do the third thing.  

That, as much as any thing else, is why the Celtics are in serious decline this season while the Spurs, even without Manu Ginobili, are still hanging with the big boys.  Huge credit to the Spurs organization for being great at scouting and acquiring good young guys, and to Greg Popovich -- who I think is the best coach in the league -- for managing his players minutes in order to win games and give time to young guys at the same time.

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

[Mike-Dub]

Veterans, experienced players, win in the playoffs not young inexperienced players who don't know what playing in the playoffs is like. 

But yes I would have liked Danny to bring in some younger talent to go along with quality experienced veterans, but those guys tend to be harder to get because they are overpaid by middle of the pack to bad teams trying to make the playoffs. 

The main difference IMO is that the Spurs have drafted better lately.

[dark_lord]

spurs are a rare breed, which makes them special

[Q_FBE]

The Spurs have not had to bring in new players. The Spurs did not make a panic trade of their starting center last season. Their players kept in shape by playing abroad.

Other than that, they are the same.

[slamtheking]

The Spurs have not had to bring in new players. The Spurs did not make a panic trade of their starting center last season. Their players kept in shape by playing abroad.

Other than that, they are the same.

one slight difference, when the Spurs bring in new players, they run a system that works and can be understood/learned without needing a year of training camp, preseason and game time to be able to contribute.

[Change]

the difference between two teams is coaching period. Gregg Popovich is hall of fame coach, and Doc Rivers lucked out with one championship. Coach Popovich contours the system based on the personnel. He doesn't suffer from vet favoritism like Doc. Anyone heard of Danny Green? He is basically now their 6th man. A player i know nothing about. Coach Popovich actually manages his Veterans minutes something Doc Rivers has never done ever.

[Mike-Dub]

the difference between two teams is coaching period. Gregg Popovich is hall of fame coach, and Doc Rivers lucked out with one championship. Coach Popovich contours the system based on the personnel. He doesn't suffer from vet favoritism like Doc. Anyone heard of Danny Green? He is basically now their 6th man. A player i know nothing about. Coach Popovich actually manages his Veterans minutes something Doc Rivers has never done ever.

Could be... I'm starting to wonder whether I overrate Doc as a coach myself, but then again Doc did an absolute great job with the C's two years ago, managing their minutes, not worrying about every win and loss and just making sure they got to the playoffs healthy. But this lead the C's to not having homecourt and was a slight reason IMO why they didn't win it all that year.

Pop last year was an absolute magician in the way he coached his team during the regular season, but I believe it cost them in the playoffs. 

Both coaches are the two best in the game right now and do it in different, but successful ways.  You can only do so much with the roster you have.

[PosImpos]

Veterans, experienced players, win in the playoffs not young inexperienced players who don't know what playing in the playoffs is like. 

But yes I would have liked Danny to bring in some younger talent to go along with quality experienced veterans, but those guys tend to be harder to get because they are overpaid by middle of the pack to bad teams trying to make the playoffs. 

The main difference IMO is that the Spurs have drafted better lately.

You need your main guys to be experienced, but you can have a young supporting cast and be successful.

[looseball]

The Spurs and Celtics are two of the oldest teams in the league, right?

Wrong.  Well, half-wrong.  The Spurs are actually a relatively young team, outside of their core.  That's how they've been able to extend their window of relevancy well beyond what anybody has expected -- they've acquired and developed young players.

Can you name any young players the Celtics have acquired and developed into rotation contributors since the Big 3 era started?  The only young guys on the team now contributing are Rondo and Bass.  Rondo was here prior to the Big 3, and Bass was acquired by trading Glen Davis, a player acquired at the same time as Garnett and Ray Allen.

If not for the unfortunate situation with Jeff Green, we could point to him, but even there it's a case of trading one young asset developed since before the Big 3 era for another young asset.

The best organizations that stay relevant year after year do so because they can spend, bring in free agents, or consistently acquire, develop, and stockpile young talent.  The Celtics can spend.  They can bring in free agents as long as the team is relevant, but not big name ones, and they haven't been able to do the third thing.  

That, as much as any thing else, is why the Celtics are in serious decline this season while the Spurs, even without Manu Ginobili, are still hanging with the big boys.  Huge credit to the Spurs organization for being great at scouting and acquiring good young guys, and to Greg Popovich -- who I think is the best coach in the league -- for managing his players minutes in order to win games and give time to young guys at the same time.

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

I was watching a video recently of a Celtics-Lakers playoff game during the Cousy-Russell era.  It was Cousy's final year and John Havlicek's rookie year.  In the fourth quarter, Cousy and Havlicek were in the game together, and Cousy was letting Havlicek bring the ball upcourt.  Talk about transition!

I agree with everything you said above, especially Doc not playing younger players much, and Danny whiffing.  Danny was a genius for one year, but that still makes him a genius, like a guy who writes only one great book can still be considered a great writer.

[BballTim]

The Spurs and Celtics are two of the oldest teams in the league, right?

Wrong.  Well, half-wrong.  The Spurs are actually a relatively young team, outside of their core.  That's how they've been able to extend their window of relevancy well beyond what anybody has expected -- they've acquired and developed young players.

Can you name any young players the Celtics have acquired and developed into rotation contributors since the Big 3 era started?  The only young guys on the team now contributing are Rondo and Bass.  Rondo was here prior to the Big 3, and Bass was acquired by trading Glen Davis, a player acquired at the same time as Garnett and Ray Allen.

If not for the unfortunate situation with Jeff Green, we could point to him, but even there it's a case of trading one young asset developed since before the Big 3 era for another young asset.

The best organizations that stay relevant year after year do so because they can spend, bring in free agents, or consistently acquire, develop, and stockpile young talent.  The Celtics can spend.  They can bring in free agents as long as the team is relevant, but not big name ones, and they haven't been able to do the third thing.  

That, as much as any thing else, is why the Celtics are in serious decline this season while the Spurs, even without Manu Ginobili, are still hanging with the big boys.  Huge credit to the Spurs organization for being great at scouting and acquiring good young guys, and to Greg Popovich -- who I think is the best coach in the league -- for managing his players minutes in order to win games and give time to young guys at the same time.

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

  If the Celts had enjoyed the same success as the Spurs the last few years you wouldn't even think of calling them relevant.

[PosImpos]

The Spurs and Celtics are two of the oldest teams in the league, right?

Wrong.  Well, half-wrong.  The Spurs are actually a relatively young team, outside of their core.  That's how they've been able to extend their window of relevancy well beyond what anybody has expected -- they've acquired and developed young players.

Can you name any young players the Celtics have acquired and developed into rotation contributors since the Big 3 era started?  The only young guys on the team now contributing are Rondo and Bass.  Rondo was here prior to the Big 3, and Bass was acquired by trading Glen Davis, a player acquired at the same time as Garnett and Ray Allen.

If not for the unfortunate situation with Jeff Green, we could point to him, but even there it's a case of trading one young asset developed since before the Big 3 era for another young asset.

The best organizations that stay relevant year after year do so because they can spend, bring in free agents, or consistently acquire, develop, and stockpile young talent.  The Celtics can spend.  They can bring in free agents as long as the team is relevant, but not big name ones, and they haven't been able to do the third thing.  

That, as much as any thing else, is why the Celtics are in serious decline this season while the Spurs, even without Manu Ginobili, are still hanging with the big boys.  Huge credit to the Spurs organization for being great at scouting and acquiring good young guys, and to Greg Popovich -- who I think is the best coach in the league -- for managing his players minutes in order to win games and give time to young guys at the same time.

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

  If the Celts had enjoyed the same success as the Spurs the last few years you wouldn't even think of calling them relevant.

Making assumptions about me seems to be your favorite thing to do.

Winning 54, 50, and 61 games, while winning their division in two out of the last three seasons?

I might not have always considered them a contender, but I would certainly have considered them relevant.  The Spurs haven't had much playoff success in recent years, but a lot of that can be attributed to unlucky injuries to one of their key players around the time that the playoffs start.

Indeed, if the Celtics had been even half as successful as the Spurs in acquiring, developing, and integrating young talent, I think they would have been much more successful than they've been, since overall they've had better luck with injuries to their veteran core than the Spurs have.

[the_Bird]

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

The Spurs have had more success acquiring and developing young players, I agree.

I don't agree with the Doc-bashing bit.  I'm going to lay the blame squarely on the feet of Danny Ainge.  Doc hasn't played his young guys, but who's the last young guy we've had who's been worth a [dang]?  There have been a lot of young guys who haven't gotten minutes here, and have been traded or released, and still aren't getting any playing time!

Was Doc supposed to play Gabe Pruitt more?  JR Giddens?  Given Semih Erden the starting spot?  Play Harangody over KG?  Give Lester Hudson some run?  

The past few years, there haven't been any decent young players to play.  

The only guy that sticks in my craw a little is Billy Walker, he's the only young guy I can think of from the past few seasons that's done anything since leaving Boston.  Billy Walker is *not* a good ballplayer, but he can score a little and might have carved himself out a little bit of a bench role here.  Didn't like the Eddie House-Nate Robinson trade to begin with, I never thought it was much of an upgrade and I didn't think it was worth tossing Walker in.  

But, who are these mythical young, talented players that Doc has kept nailed to the bench?

Fact is, Danny just hasn't done a good job in acquiring young guys - not entirely his fault, but not entirely not his fault, either.

[JSD]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

[PosImpos]

By contrast, Doc hardly ever plays young players, especially rookies, and Danny has whiffed pretty badly on almost all the picks he's made during the Big 3 era.

The Spurs have had more success acquiring and developing young players, I agree.

I don't agree with the Doc-bashing bit.  I'm going to lay the blame squarely on the feet of Danny Ainge.  Doc hasn't played his young guys, but who's the last young guy we've had who's been worth a [dang]?  There have been a lot of young guys who haven't gotten minutes here, and have been traded or released, and still aren't getting any playing time!

Was Doc supposed to play Gabe Pruitt more?  JR Giddens?  Given Semih Erden the starting spot?  Play Harangody over KG?  Give Lester Hudson some run? 

The past few years, there haven't been any decent young players to play. 

The only guy that sticks in my craw a little is Billy Walker, he's the only young guy I can think of from the past few seasons that's done anything since leaving Boston.  Billy Walker is *not* a good ballplayer, but he can score a little and might have carved himself out a little bit of a bench role here.  Didn't like the Eddie House-Nate Robinson trade to begin with, I never thought it was much of an upgrade and I didn't think it was worth tossing Walker in. 

But, who are these mythical young, talented players that Doc has kept nailed to the bench?

Fact is, Danny just hasn't done a good job in acquiring young guys - not entirely his fault, but not entirely not his fault, either.

I definitely don't think it's entirely Doc's fault.  But I really don't think Doc takes advantage of his opportunities to give young players time. 

It's true that Danny hasn't given Doc much to work with, but the Spurs manage to make the most of players that didn't seem like rotation-worthy players before they come to San Antonio.  Danny Green, for example, could hardly get playing time before he came there, and now he's doing very well in his opportunities there.  Gary Neal went undrafted, but turned out to be a very solid role player when given the chance in the Spurs' system. 

I agree with your basic, point, however.  The major part of the blame falls on Danny, who hasn't taken the sort of chances on guys like DeJuan Blair that the Spurs have, or stockpiled valuable foreign assets like Tiago Splitter or Luis Scola (unless you count Semih Erden).

[PosImpos]

In the 4 seasons leading up to this one the Celtics have won the East twice, an NBA title and 4 division titles. You seem to be basing everything off the very beginning of this season and the fact the Spurs of medium to low end prospects.

The Spurs too are facing a rebuilding period in the near future.

The Spurs have drafted in roughly the same parts of the draft as the Celtics in the past four years, and have had similar constraints in terms of money and win-now attitude with an older core, yet now they find themselves with a handful of talented young rotation players.  

Meanwhile, the Celtics don't have any young contributors on the team who's been acquired or drafted in the Big 3 era other than Brandon Bass, who was essentially swapped for Glen Davis, as I've already discussed. 

My point is that this is why we've seen the Spurs continue to be successful long after most people assumed they'd be fading, while the Celtics have declined and find themselves with a team that has very little depth.