Watching the Spurs and hearing all of this talk of Popovich being one of the greatest coaches in history, I started comparing Popovich to Rudy. In the 90s, many considered Rudy a better coach than Popovich. However, it appears Pop became a better coach because he established an identity/philosophy with the Spurs and then filled his roster with players who matched his team vision. Both coaches lost HOF centers, but one adjusted better. It seems, Rudy started leaning more on more on coaching ISO ball. As Dream declined, Rudy acquired Barkley and Pippen. He still did not implement an offensive philosophy, instead he allowed his 4 HOF players to take turns in his ISO based offense. Later on, he basically allowed Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley and even Moochie Norris to just pound the ball. I can still remember Olajuwon setting up in the post or setting a pick for Francis and Mobley and they would wave him off to go one on one with 2-3 defenders. On the other hand, Popovich seemed to want an offense based on movement and unselfish play. His teams were not built on ISO ball or athleticism, but on high IQ, unselfishness and team defense. I guess the results speaks for themselves. Popovich is now considered a HOF coach and I don't think anyone can argue that Rudy was a better coach. Hopefully, this new Rockets generation and management will not make the same mistake as Rudy and allow ISO ball to be their primary offense in the coming years.
Look I'm a diehard Rockets fan but Rudy MIGHT be half of the coach Pop is.. If you started that discussion and wanted to compare whether Rudy was half the coach Pop is then we can talk and argue. However, you can't even compare them evenly- Pop is a much better coach. Don't get me wrong, I loved Rudy T too- amazing motivator- knew how to get his guys playing with heart and passion. BTW I don't know if you were actually comparing them- I didn't read the post just the title so sorry ahead of time
Vich one is better? Rudy T will always hold the love card. Rudy T never tanked, never tanked and got a Duncan, never tanked got a Duncan then canned his buddy so as to coach the Admiral and the Islander. Vich one do you want to support?
Good point. I changed the title. I was thinking of how each coach changed or evolved and how the perception of them also changed.
What is the Spurs identity/philosophy? In terms of playing style, the Spurs if the last few years is very different compared to the Spurs 10 years ago. One of the admirable things about Popovich is how he's been able to reinvent how they play while retaining a high level of excellence throughout.
Just in terms of coaching, Rudy's underappreciated. It would've been interesting to see how he'd have done with the 1-in-4-out system for the majority of Hakeem's career, instead of just the end of it. In terms of personnel moves, unfortunately Rudy's a bit lacking. Mo Taylor? Shandon Anderson? Kelvin Cato? Eddie Griffin(whom they didn't even interview and turned him into a 3pt shooter?), Bryce Drew/Turksan/Boki? What kind of team were he and Dawson trying to build anyway? Just get a bunch of random players with random skills?
I'm a big fan of coaching. Change Milk Hair with Pop and it might be the Rockets in the Finals. That said, to note that Pop lost a top center ala RudyT and still thrived completely misses the mark. The Spurs drafted Tim Duncan. I think Duncan wins one or more championship regardless of which team drafts him or who is coaching him. Then by the way they draft Parker and Ginobili. There will never be a good answer to the coach vs player argument. The best example is Phil Jackson... Who struggled with a team of lesser players. This may be Pops best coaching year since it seems like his players aren't at or near their peak as they once were. But they're still damn damn good. Pop isn't out there hitting 55% of the shots. And as much credit as he gets, his offense seemingly is VERY similar to the Rockets offense... Eg don't let the ball get sticky. He's just got incredibly experienced and savvy players that execute that to perfection. And when that fails what do they do? Basically post up Duncan or give it to Parker to break down his defender, which he does with ease. AKA ISO-ball. Sound familiar? He's a master of team defensive coaching, IMO. And he's a master "leader" knowing who to hold accountable and when. All that said, you can almost point directly to him for last years finals loss... And the Spurs haven't won yet. Finally, the Spurs are incredibly lucky. ALL of their earlier championships were cakewalks of teams through the playoffs. The Nets? The CAVS? Lol. Their west competition wasn't any better really. This year and last is different... though in both years key injuries for their biggest competitors - Thunder - have played HUGE factors. Again, Pops is amazing. But this thread is kind of pointless.
They are only similar in that both teams WANT to move the ball. The difference is that the Spurs actually do.
Popovich wasn't Pop in the 90's. Rudy probably was the better coach than Popovich in the 90's, at least until '98. Now it's not even a question that Pop is the best coach probably ever. The thing with Rudy is that he would run one play to the ground until the other team can stop it. While it was pretty effective, you pretty much need a totally dominant player like Hakeem for it to be successful. Pop's coaching is more of a system than an actual plays. Pop has molded the read and react play style of basketball to this finest degree. It a total team game. Pop's offense makes Boris Diaw seem like Chris Paul with his passes. Splitter is doing touch passes like a guard/forward. There doesn't need to be a totally dominant player for Pop's system to work. That's why I feel like Pop is probably the best coach ever. Yes, he had Duncan and Robinson then added Parker and Manu later, but the way his team plays basketball now is truly amazing.
Rudy had a great run with the Rockets, I'm grateful and will never forget it, but he is nowhere close to Pop.
Rudy was a great coach but a terrible talent evaluater. He was always willing to overpay for shooters regardless of how much they sucked.
I was really young during the Rockets championship runs, so I don't have much memory of the nuances of coaching and things like that. And you can't argue with results. But I feel like my memory was that Rudy T wasn't that great of a coach. Wasn't he quoted before as saying to just "get the ball to f*#%(!* Hakeem"? (I might be wrong on that, but I think I remember hearing him quoted as that) From my very limited memory, I thought his entire offense was to pass the ball to Hakeem, one of the greatest players ever, and see what happens. Which, I guess, isn't that much different from the 'don't let the ball get sticky and see what happens' offense that McHale tries to run.
Rudy going to ISO was the best choice during that era IMO. He also took Brad Miller and CBA players to a bronze medal in the World Games then won a gold in an era when many other NBA coaches failed to. Popovich to me is up there with Pat Riley in a zone above every other coach/GM. They didn't just coach teams like Phil Jackson, they built franchises, won for extended periods, changed their schemes and have strong coaching trees to show for it.
Rudy and CD made bad player choices. I love Rudy. But I think I could have coached the rockets if I had Hakeem and that roster. Throw it to Hakeem. Beat your man. If the double comes, kick it to the open man.
+1. please don't compare rockets and spurs in terms of team play. the rockets only wait for the 1 pass and then they take a shot or drive. sometimes they make the extra the pass but most of the time they do not. heat move the ball well but their ball movement is slower and not as intricate as the spurs. spurs are just the epitome of teamwork. it is ingrained within their thought processes to make the extra pass for a better shot.
If Kam were coach we would turn into a WNBA team with a bunch of little girl teeny boppers running around
I love Rudy, love him as a player and a coach. He bleeds Rocket's red. He and Pop are NOTHING alike: appearance, style, coaching approach, nothing.
