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

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.

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.

Quote from: Boris Badenov on June 07, 2013, 05:28:17 PM

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.