Spurs running a clinic on winning without superstars....Rockets need to take a lesson

This is my point though...you can't find guys like that. Brooks wasn't/isn't as good as parker. manu-tmac comparison could be legit if Tmac was healthy, but Yao's not as saavy as TD.

Then yo u have Pop, Mchale is nothing compared to Pop. JVG doesn't have his experience. RA 's resume is closer to Pop's than the other two's, but still falls short and was at a point in his career where he's just on auto pilot.

The chemistry and experience these guys have built over 4 championship runs and a decade together is unmatched, including international experience. Together, incoming players have no choice but to respect them and buy into what they're trying to do. You just don't get 4 guys like that anywhere anymore.

Give us their supporting cast, with RA, and tmac/yao/brooks and we won't be as good.



That being said. These guys know this is the perfect year for them. A shortened season was a godsend for them. They're focusing more on every single game in an effort to minimize the total amount of games they'll play. At this rate they'll win a ring having played just one normal regular season. They have their foot on the gas pedal, but they may be peaking too early. If OKC or miami can extend a series with them, the big three may start to sputter.

And going back to the superstars or not argument...if you put more load on those three and don't make the others share some responsibility, then the big three would put up higher numbers. They strike only when they need to and not because they have to. You've got 6 of 10 reserves shooting over 50% in the playoffs. 7 of 10 shooting over 38% from three.

 

maybe three hall of famers. but no they have no talent whatsoever!

 

Yes they don't have any superstars, top 5 players, but they have a player who is the best to ever play his position, a pg that is playing just as good as anybody at his position this year, and Ginobli, who when healthy, is the best 6th man in the league. When you factor in that they have so much experience because of all the winning they did when Duncan was the best player in the league you are looking at a formula that is very hard to duplicate.

 

Point noted although I must admit that you have far more faith in this hire than do I. I remain deeply suspicious as to his motivation for wanting to be a head coach - he just doesn't impress me as a competent choice given all of the really good and experienced assistant coaches who were available.

 

Why does a superstar have to be limited to a top 5 player in the NBA? If I feel a guy has all the characteristics of a superstar but I consider him the 6th best player in the NBA does that disqualify him from superstar status?

At any given point in the NBA's history there have been more then 5 superstars. No reason to pigeonhole it like that.

 

Exactly. Top 5 player? That's a pretty tall order for being a "superstar."

As if being the best player on a team that is about to win it's 5th championship in 13 years isn't good enough to be considered a superstar.

 

Spurs are top 3 franchise since drafting David Robinson. Always getting the most out of veterans, manage to keep their best players and with Popovich at the helm, you can't go wrong. The Rockets can definitely learn from that.

 

I give up trying to figure out a post for this thread. No words in existence could quantify how dumb I find this thread...

 

Last I checked Tim Duncan went #1 to the Spurs, aka a top five pick!

 

Superstar = someone you would pay the max to, at a minimum. Very simple. Which Spur would make the max were he available?

 

So you'd "build your team around" Tony Parker? You seem to be big on having someone to build a team around. You would be happy if the Rockets traded for Tony Parker, paid him the max, and decided to "build around" him?

 

Chauncey Billups was the best player on a championship team. Was he a superstar?

 

I don't know. Is he going to play more than 28 minutes a game? Are you going to build your team around a guy that can't even crack 30 minutes?

 

Let me ask you it another way.

Take Duncan away from the Spurs - let's say he breaks his foot. How many rings would the Spurs have today?

 

It's a little bit of both. They have a superstar, but aging ones. Still, Parker is averaging like 21 and 7 in the playoffs and averaged 18 and 8 during the season IIRC. At PG, those are big numbers. Duncan is averaging 17 and 10 as well. For a superstar on the 'decline' that's still damn good.

They have a great system, but to act like they have been successful without high level talent is ridiculous.

 

I don't know if Da-Da is aware. But I sure as hell I am. As far back as getting "glue" for $3.3m of an MLE (Bowen) instead of buying high with a Lottery pick.

 

Pistons won 1 championship, not (soon to be) 5.

And besides the Pistons, when is the last time a team won a championship without a HOF player?

 

Ben Wallace was 2nd team all NBA that season, as I recall.

Nevertheless, that one year of Pistons basketball was a complete anomaly in our lifetimes.

 

To be fair, during there run, I would have no problem calling Chanuncey a superstar. He could score with the best of them, set up the offense and keep Rip, Tayshaun and Sheed all happy and on the same page, and he also had an Horry like knack for hitting the big shot.

Add that all up and you get a superstar.

 

I think Hollinger mentioned his PER? during that champ playoff run and the following season was at a number only superstar players got in years when they won titles.