San Antonio Spurs

[friendly0603]

magkaiba sir... kaya please settle your mind first kung alin ba talaga ang tanong

mo dun... kasi sa kakagawa mo ng palusot, iba-iba na yung lumalabas

na tanong mo as compare sa initial post mo...

Ang kulit ano? Puwede sagutin mo yung reporter or yung article? The question came from those views.

It's the same question - not worded differently. Kung hindi mo ma-comprehend, it's not my problem.

 

Paano naging malayo eh yan pa rin ang question? Isipin mo na lang kung ano ang gusto mo isipin.

O bakit kaya dahil meron ka pang 2 qualifiers eh di sagutin mo na lang pareho?

 

Di na kailangan ng repetitive posts with no content?

[friendly0603]

I think it's clear now ... your objective is really not know what the reaction of the spurs fans but rather to know specifically if there are spurs fans out there who share your POV that Pop made the wrong decision.

It's only my POV. Again it's not about sharing. It's about being a loyal fan yet not agreeing with what your team did. If they truly had no chance to win game 6, I wouldn't even be asking.

 

Really? Those articles never made you read and think?

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/gregg-poppovich-is-a-genius-but-he-really-screwed-up/

 

What about Magic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHJucfYEzP4&proxmate=us

 

What about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wjS5zAG44&proxmate=us

 

if you were in Pop's position not knowing what will actually happen but only all the possibilities in mind, what would be your call? To foul or not? If you said to foul, who will you foul and in what particular situation?

Like my links before showed, fouling would be during the offensive rebound or before a 2nd 3pt attempt because you need to waste some time from the clock first. With less time, foul whoever was the worst at the free throw line from the heat or anyone who could probably miss at the line at a crucial situation except Ray. These are the potential situations.

 

Bottomline you know is that the SPurs did not lose because of Allen's 3 pointer as all it did was to tie the game. They still have a chance to win in OT but unfortunately they didn't. What happened is another story.

I don't have to comment on this.

[fatchubs]

 

Like my links before showed, fouling would be during the offensive rebound or before a 2nd 3pt attempt because you need to waste some time from the clock first. With less time, foul whoever was the worst at the free throw line from the heat or anyone who could probably miss at the line at a crucial situation except Ray. These are the potential situations.

 

 

 

Well you have your potential situations. So let us relate your answer to what really happened because this is how the play went by ...

Between the offensive rebound of Bosh and the shot attempt that is about one second. See the replay again, when Bosh got the rebound he was not a threat offensively nor he was looking to shoot. So why foul and give him 2 FT with 9 seconds left? It runs contrary to the "YOU NEED TO WASTE SOME TIME FROM THE CLOCK" strategy. By doing so you stop the clock and at the same time gave the Heat an opportunity to score 2 points. Then on the next play the Spurs will have to ensure that they make a good inbound to the right person at the right spot then hope that the heat won't force a turnover and instead foul. When they foul which I believe will be immediately so that they can have enough time for one last possession, the Spurs are now pressured to make the FT. Now if only one FT was converted, then the Spurs definitely can't foul and have to play honest D. If its a 3 point deficit, the Heat still have time to launch one final play to equalize. So the same dilemma happens, do the Spurs foul or not the Heat trying to attempt a 3 pointer? The only difference this time is that you know it will most likely be shot off a screen or a catch and shoot. In the end the best scenario is still not to foul under these circumstances.

 

Now as we know the pass went to Allen who according to you is the last person you want to foul. Therefore, it is a no brainer that no one fouled Allen when he got the pass moreso he was attempting a 3 pointer.

What am I saying here ...

• Pop decided to play honest D instead of giving up a foul since he knows the Heat will most likely take a three and normally you don't foul someone attempting a 3 pointer. Immediately fouling someone not even taking a shot will only result to stopping the clock and give them FT to cut your lead possibly to one. After which the pressure now shifts to the Spurs knowing that your opponent will ensure that they will have one last chance to tie of which essentially you also most likely cannot foul.

• While the potential scenarios are valid, there was no way to execute them considering that if you wanted to waste time you don't foul someone who is not even in a position to shoot the basket and give him 2 FT. The same goes for fouling the worst FT shooter since Wade, Chalmers, LBJ, Bosh and Allen are all respectable FT shooters. Finally, no way you wanna foul Allen attempting a 3.

 

In short the first one shows why Pop believes they should not foul and the second tells us that while there were various POSSIBILITIES to FOUL, there was really no OPPORTUNITY.

[friendly0603]

Between the offensive rebound of Bosh and the shot attempt that is about one second. See the replay again, when Bosh got the rebound he was not a threat offensively nor he was looking to shoot. So why foul and give him 2 FT with 9 seconds left? It runs contrary to the "YOU NEED TO WASTE SOME TIME FROM THE CLOCK" strategy. By doing so you stop the clock and at the same time gave the Heat an opportunity to score 2 points.

So you just want to relate potential to what happened?

One - they already wasted clock by allowing the first attempt. Leaving 9 seconds left, it's already acceptable to foul because they are still ahead. So I would allow a foul on Bosh. It's not guaranteed that Bosh would hit both. The pressure of the situation could get to him as do most players. He's had a lousy scoring night as well. If you listen to the commentator even before the first attempt, he was asking if the Spurs should foul. That's even earlier than my waste my clock situation. I only meant not to foul early which they did by playing honest D and allowing the first 3 pt attempt by LBJ.

 

Then on the next play the Spurs will have to ensure that they make a good inbound to the right person at the right spot then hope that the heat won't force a turnover and instead foul. When they foul which I believe will be immediately so that they can have enough time for one last possession, the Spurs are now pressured to make the FT. Now if only one FT was converted, then the Spurs definitely can't foul and have to play honest D. If its a 3 point deficit, the Heat still have time to launch one final play to equalize. So the same dilemma happens, do the Spurs foul or not the Heat trying to attempt a 3 pointer? The only difference this time is that you know it will most likely be shot off a screen or a catch and shoot. In the end the best scenario is still not to foul under these circumstances.

Now you are assuming the worst case that will happen against the spurs and assuming the best case for miami. We won't know what will actually happen.

So this would be a very extreme case of everything not going for the spurs and the opposite for miami. I'm not afraid of a turnover on a spurs inbound play. That means you are scared to have the ball in your hands to close or win this game even if thru FTs. You want the opponent to miss rather than your team to win by executing.

 

Now as we know the pass went to Allen who according to you is the last person you want to foul. Therefore, it is a no brainer that no one fouled Allen when he got the pass moreso he was attempting a 3 pointer. What am I saying here ...

Pop decided to play honest D instead of giving up a foul since he knows the Heat will most likely take a three and normally you don't foul someone attempting a 3 pointer. Immediately fouling someone not even taking a shot will only result to stopping the clock and give them FT to cut your lead possibly to one. the pressure now shifts to the Spurs knowing that your opponent will ensure that they will have one last chance to tie of which essentially you also most likely cannot foul. While the potential scenarios are valid, there was no way to execute them considering that if you wanted to waste time you don't foul someone who is not even in a position to shoot the basket and give him 2 FT. The same goes for fouling the worst FT shooter since Wade, Chalmers, LBJ, Bosh and Allen are all respectable FT shooters. Finally, no way you wanna foul Allen attempting a 3.

You would only foul Allen before a 3pt attempt. So that he can only have 2 TFs. You can foul someone who will not shoot as long as they have the ball. The foul is better in critical situations like this since we all know that situation is greatly magnified. Miss and you will likely lose. It won't be a regular free throw. Anyone is most likely to miss - Manu and Kawhi missed one each. It's not going to be automatic.

 

In short the first one shows why Pop believes they should not foul and the second tells us that while there were various POSSIBILITIES to FOUL, there was really no OPPORTUNITY.

There was no directive to FOUL. So even if there was, they wouldn't and to quote again "We don't" - Pop. Even though you have explanations as to why you think they didn't foul and had no OPPORTUNITY to, it was never the plan. If they planned it, then all of the players' interviews would have said that they wanted to FOUL but had no OPPORTUNITY. And I wouldn't have faulted Pop for that. But like those links I gave, the coaching decisions led to the game 6 loss even if everyone agrees that Pop is a great coach.

 

Now, that I hope you understand my POV and I've already known yours from the start. You didn't have to re-explain everything coz we know what transpired. I will stop here. Back to discussion with the spurs for the next season. I just hope this isn't the last chance for Tim's 5th ring.

[fatchubs]

With the initial play, it was ok for you not to foul but with 9 sec left you're saying they should foul ... In both instances the spurs were up by three. Care to share your view?

 

Those who knows their basketball wouldn't give up a foul specially when FT will be awarded if the offensive guy is not in a position to score when your team has the lead. Even if its a pressure pack FT attempt, it is still a higher percentage shot than a pressure pack FG attempt from the three point area.

Edited July 13, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

It's as clear as day that you want to limit the 3 pt attempts for Miami. The more clock you waste, the lesser the number of attempts. That's why LBJ shot early in case he misses. They could've held on for just one decent look at a 3 if all they wanted was one good look. Miami wanted as many attempts as they can.

 

So clearly, those articles/writers/commentators don't know their basketball. Why would they ask that question of fouling? Just do the math, a 3 will send the game to overtime and you could possibly lose with that extra time. 2 pressure packed FTs won't beat you even if they make both. You're still left with a 1pt lead. It's smarter to foul than to give them that chance at a 3pt shot.

[fatchubs]

1373678870[/url]' post='8776895']

 

 

 

Now you are assuming the worst case that will happen against the spurs and assuming the best case for miami. We won't know what will actually happen.

So this would be a very extreme case of everything not going for the spurs and the opposite for miami. I'm not afraid of a turnover on a spurs inbound play. That means you are scared to have the ball in your hands to close or win this game even if thru FTs. You want the opponent to miss rather than your team

 

 

There was no directive to FOUL. So even if there was, they wouldn't and to quote again "We don't" - Pop. Even though you have explanations as to why you think they didn't foul and had no OPPORTUNITY to, it was never the plan. If they planned it, then all of the players' interviews would have said that they wanted to FOUL but had no OPPORTUNITY. And I wouldn't have faulted Pop for that. But like those links I gave, the coaching decisions led to the game 6 loss even if everyone agrees that Pop is a great coach.

 

 

 

I am just putting myself in the shoes of Pop. As a coach would you rather think of the best scenario that could happen in favor of your opponent when deciding on a defensive play or you rather think otherwise?

There was no directive tand did you realixed reakizes wge

[fatchubs]

^^^ pls disregard the last line of my post above. I failed to delete it before i posted ...me bad

 

 

1373726573[/url]' post='8778176']It's as clear as day that you want to limit the 3 pt attempts for Miami. The more clock you waste, the lesser the number of attempts. That's why LBJ shot early in case he misses. They could've held on for just one decent look at a 3 if all they wanted was one good look. Miami wanted as many attempts as they can.

 

Yes agree ako you wanted to waste time and limit their attempt in fact hindi ba dapat na pinaguusapan sa ganoong sitwasyon ay to limit your opponent to 1shot? Remember 17 sec na lang ata ang time nun naginbound ang miami sa backcourt. Kaya nga no foul ...para tumakbo ang oras and at the same time you put the pressure on them to score. No easy basket specially un FT.

Pero siyempre expected din ng Spurs na kung tumira ang kalaban dapat makuha nila ang rebound diba? Basic basketball ang not allowing offensive boards. Wala naman sigurong tangang coach ang pinagplaplanuhan ay kung ilang attempts magkakaroon ang kalaban with17 sec. .

 

 

 

So clearly, those articles/writers/commentators don't know their basketball. Why would they ask that question of fouling? Just do the math, a 3 will send the game to overtime and you could possibly lose with that extra time. 2 pressure packed FTs won't beat you even if they make both. You're still left with a 1pt lead. It's smarter to foul than to give them that chance at a 3pt shot.

 

 

Ganito lang yan bro ... Madaming nagmamagaling na magbigay ng kanikanilang opinion kung ano dapat ang naging desisyon ni Pop ngayong nakita na natin ang nangyari.

 

Its not to say you as well as the commentators dont know your basketball. Tama ang comments ninyo kung tutuusin. Since the Spurs went on to lose game six after Allen got to tie the game, logical naman ang mag foul at ibigay na lang ang two FT kaysa sa tres at makatabla.

 

Ang problema hindi alam ng coach kung ano ba talaga ang mangyayari....mga posibilidad ang tumatakbo sa utak niya habag siya'y nagdesisyon at sa palagay niya hindi dapat mag foul. Hindi tulad ninyo wala siyang benefit ng hindsight nung nagdesisyon siya.

 

Kalimutan muna natin pansamantala ang nakita na nating nangyari na. Ikaw ang magsabi ... Halimbawang ang utos ay mag foul from the start at naibaba sa dalawang puntos with time remaining at nangyari ang hindi inaasahan na makapuntos muli at nanalo ang heat sa regulation. Tama ba ang desisyong mag foul? Siyempre in hindsight mali kasi nga naman bakit ka pa mag foul samantalang lamang ka na ng tatlo at tabla panalo na ang situasyon mo. Again am not painting a favorable situation for the Heat po ha. Pinapakita ko lang ang isa sa mga posibilidad na mangyari. Hindi po pwedeng idisregard ang ganitiong scenario kasi maaring mangyari kahit na sabihin mong maliit ang posibilidad.

 

At the end of the day some guys will question Pop's decision. But even if they lost the game in ot i believe he stand by his decision not to foul coz he thinks its the best decision to be made under the circumstance without the benefit of the hindsight. Had the Spurs won even without any intention of fouling may magsasabi kayang mali un desisyon? O baka ang sinasabi mo ngayon pati na rin ang sinusulat ng mga commentators ay ang pagiging defensive genius ni Pop.

 

Isa lang ang masasabi ko ... To foul or not to foul are both acceptable decisions. But you will never know which one is correct until the play has been completed. Kung may crystal ball si POP tulad siguro ninyo am sure he will also decide like you do. Sino ba ang may gustong matalo?

 

At Kung napakagaing niyang mga commentators at writers magdesisyon kung anong tamang play ang itatawag not in hindsight, hindi po sila commentators o writers ngayon kundi malamang sila po ang nasa pwesto ni Pop bilang coach.

 

 

Moral of the argument ... Deciding in hindsight is always easier than deciding on the spot not knowing what will actually happen. In hindsight you will never go wrong!

 

 

Edited July 13, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

^^^ pls disregard the last line of my post above. I failed to delete it before i posted ...me bad

Wala naman sigurong tangang coach ang pinagplaplanuhan ay kung ilang attempts magkakaroon ang kalaban with 17 sec.

Fell asleep and didn't bother posting my reply. Yes, but the plan is to limit those attempts and should've planned what to do in case they didn't get the rebound.

Kalimutan muna natin pansamantala ang nakita na nating nangyari na. Ikaw ang magsabi ... Halimbawang ang utos ay mag foul from the start at naibaba sa dalawang puntos with time remaining at nangyari ang hindi inaasahan na makapuntos muli at nanalo ang heat sa regulation. Tama ba ang desisyong mag foul? Siyempre in hindsight mali kasi nga naman bakit ka pa mag foul samantalang lamang ka na ng tatlo at tabla panalo na ang situasyon mo. Again am not painting a favorable situation for the Heat po ha. Pinapakita ko lang ang isa sa mga posibilidad na mangyari. Hindi po pwedeng idisregard ang ganitiong scenario kasi maaring mangyari kahit na sabihin mong maliit ang posibilidad.

Anything's possible. Fouling early may have been wrong as well in the situation you just described. But am not offering that solution. If they foul, it means they are confident in the spurs own FT shooting and poise that they can close out the game. They just want to avoid the game tying situation of the heat making a 3.

At the end of the day some guys will question Pop's decision. But even if they lost the game in ot i believe he stand by his decision not to foul coz he thinks its the best decision to be made under the circumstance without the benefit of the hindsight. Had the Spurs won even without any intention of fouling may magsasabi kayang mali un desisyon? O baka ang sinasabi mo ngayon pati na rin ang sinusulat ng mga commentators ay ang pagiging defensive genius ni Pop.

If the Spurs won even with bad decisions, it wouldn't matter. The mistake is forgotten by the end result of a win. If they didn't make those mistakes, the only difference would be a larger lead/point differential for the win. What can happen is either Miami's shots didn't fall even if they had the chance, or the defense didn't allow Miami to have a good look. So either the players execute great defense or Miami will have be unlucky at their attempt(s). Let's admit it. They were all clean looks. No one was there close enough to have a hand on the ball or force it to be a fade away 3 or even cover the eyes of the shooters.

Isa lang ang masasabi ko ... To foul or not to foul are both acceptable decisions. But you will never know which one is correct until the play has been completed. Kung may crystal ball si POP tulad siguro ninyo am sure he will also decide like you do. Sino ba ang may gustong matalo?

With a crystal ball knowing the result, he will change his decision. But without a crystal ball in the same situation, he says he will do it again. Just means that this is what he's made up his mind on.

At Kung napakagaing niyang mga commentators at writers magdesisyon kung anong tamang play ang itatawag not in hindsight, hindi po sila commentators o writers ngayon kundi malamang sila po ang nasa pwesto ni Pop bilang coach.

Moral of the argument ... Deciding in hindsight is always easier than deciding on the spot not knowing what will actually happen. In hindsight you will never go wrong!

Wrong argument. No matter how good of a coach you are, unless you are given the chance. You won't be in that spot. Just look at Spoelstra, no one other than the heat gave him a chance. Do you think he's not a good coach? Do you think other teams don't think he's a good coach?

I agree with hindsight. But you already saw this same result in the Indiana series. Everyone knows Pop's a great coach. His decisions were spot on in other games, other series. But he's not perfect. Every commentator/writer/fan has respectfully said that before making their objections to those decisions he made.

[fatchubs]

Anything's possible. Fouling early may have been wrong as well in the situation you just described. But am not offering that solution. If they foul, it means they are confident in the spurs own FT shooting and poise that they can close out the game. They just want to avoid the game tying situation of the heat making a 3.

 

 

Oh well, as i said over and over again, you have the benefit of hindsight so you will never be wrong in saying Pop made the wrong decision not to foul. But you wouldn't know what would have actually transpired if they opt to foul even say when Bosh got the offensive board with around 9 seconds left. 9 seconds is still a lot of basketball. Babalik at babalik ang bola sa heat for another attempt. And since most likely titirada ng tres yan the spurs will still end up relying on solid D to tide them over.

 

Personally i view it as a choice between playing honest D, no fouls and try to win the game or at worst go into ot or give up a foul and two FT then still open up the possibility for a possible game winning shot from the heat if the spurs can't convert or end up still in a tie if not winning outright.

 

Sa option na possibleng tabla-panalo o tabla-talo-panalo dun na ako sa una. Pero choice mo yan kung ikaw gusto mong sumugal.

 

It is really a matter of trying to understand why he made that decision and see if it is logical and accept it as it is. Both options are correct with a 50/50 probability. If you can't accept the decision as a Spurs fan or as a simple basketball fan then so be it.

 

 

 

 

Wrong argument. No matter how good of a coach you are, unless you are given the chance. You won't be in that spot. Just look at Spoelstra, no one other than the heat gave him a chance. Do you think he's not a good coach? Do you think other teams don't think he's a good coach?

I agree with hindsight. But you already saw this same result in the Indiana series. Everyone knows Pop's a great coach. His decisions were spot on in other games, other series. But he's not perfect. Every commentator/writer/fan has respectfully said that before making their objections to those decisions he made.

 

The mere fact that Spo became a coach means he's capable of being one since someone gave him his chance and believes in him.

 

Therefore the argument as it is is that if you, the commentators or the writers are good in making coaching decisions, then somehow, i expect all of you to be a coach and making tough decisions before the play happened rather that trying to be brilliant with all your "should have" remarks with the benefit of hindsight.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

Oh well, as i said over and over again, you have the benefit of hindsight so you will never be wrong in saying Pop made the wrong decision not to foul. But you wouldn't know what would have actually transpired if they opt to foul even say when Bosh got the offensive board with around 9 seconds left. 9 seconds is still a lot of basketball. Babalik at babalik ang bola sa heat for another attempt. And since most likely titirada ng tres yan the spurs will still end up relying on solid D to tide them over.

Yes, but with less time you'll have less opportunities for a clean look. The defense will be better as well since there's only one shot to defend. Even if they miss again, most likely there's no time for another rebound, pass and shoot opportunity. That's what you want with less time.

Personally i view it as a choice between playing honest D, no fouls and try to win the game or at worst go into ot or give up a foul and two FT then still open up the possibility for a possible game winning shot from the heat if the spurs can't convert or end up still in a tie if not winning outright.

You have to believe that having the ball in your hands means you win or lose depending on what you do. Not depending on what your opponents do. You believe you can execute and score when you need to. You have TP, TD and Manu who have won multiple rings. Trust your superstars in these situations.

It is really a matter of trying to understand why he made that decision and see if it is logical and accept it as it is. Both options are correct with a 50/50 probability. If you can't accept the decision as a Spurs fan or as a simple basketball fan then so be it.

I think Pop summed it up perfectly - "It's a game of mistakes."

 

The mere fact that Spo became a coach means he's capable of being one since someone gave him his chance and believes in him.

Therefore the argument as it is is that if you, the commentators or the writers are good in making coaching decisions, then somehow, i expect all of you to be a coach and making tough decisions before the play happened rather that trying to be brilliant with all your "should have" remarks with the benefit of hindsight.

Only one man saw his capability and it was enough to get him there. And if he was replaced when he lost in his first finals in 2011, we wouldn't know if he was good enough to win a finals series. Edited July 14, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

1373801221[/url]' post='8779180']

Yes, but with less time you'll have less opportunities for a clean look. The defense will be better as well since there's only one shot to defend. Even if they miss again, most likely there's no time for another rebound, pass and shoot opportunity. That's what you want with less time.

 

What you are saying is based on logical reasoning. But as we see in this situation even if you foul bosh you give up two FT and still there will most likely be time for one final offensive for the heat to tie or win outright. And even with time running out it is no assurance that the D will be better. How many buzzer beaters have we seen?

 

 

You have to believe that having the ball in your hands means you win or lose depending on what you do. Not depending on what your opponents do. You believe you can execute and score when you need to. You have TP, TD and Manu who have won multiple rings. Trust your superstars in these situations.

I think Pop summed it up perfectly - "It's a game of mistakes."

 

And believe did Pop on his players to be able to execute a good defensive stance to preserve their lead without fouling. In fact it was not only the superstars he trusted considering he sat Duncan in favor of Diaw.

 

Let me remind you that the game was not lost on Allen's three. What it just did was to tie the game. The Spurs had one last play to convert offensively but they didn't. They didn't pull it off as well in OT. This is a perfect case of the ball is in their hands for the win but the Spurs were not up to it. So the issue is not solely why they didn't foul. If they foul Bosh with 9seconds left they need to deliver the next play since surely the Heat will foul to get the final possession and could go for the win or tie. We don't know what will happen should that situation happen. even if Pop trust his superstars making an offensive play, we don't Know if they will deliver. ONe thing is sure though the Spurs was not able to deliver offensively even if they had their chance in regulation.

 

Only one man saw his capability and it was enough to get him there. And if he was replaced when he lost in his first finals in 2011, we wouldn't know if he was good enough to win a finals series.

 

 

So what if only one man saw his potential? Its immaterial since coach siya at hindi commentarista. That is all one need ... A person that will believe in his coaching ability. A person who thinks that someone can make sound coaching decisions as the game is in progress and not making perfect decisions in hindsight like you , the writers or the commentators do. Bottomline. Naging coach siya kaya kahit man sabihing hindi siya ang pinakamagaling na coach coach pa rin siya hindi isang komentarista di naman coach o naging coach.

 

Kahit ball boy ka pero nakitaan ka ng potential maging coach, may magtitiwala. Pero perfect man ang maging desisyon mo in hindsight walang kwenta yan at tiyak malabo kang maging coach.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

What you are saying is based on logical reasoning. But as we see in this situation even if you foul bosh you give up two FT and still there will most likely be time for one final offensive for the heat to tie or win outright. And even with time running out it is no assurance that the D will be better. How many buzzer beaters have we seen?

Assuming Bosh will make his FTs, you give one more offensive play to the spurs. If the Spurs score 1 or 2 FTs or a basket or maybe even a 3, you can get anywhere from a 2,3-4 pt (1 if no FTs and turnover) but you still wasted time on the clock. If they win thru their offense or D, at least it is what they did. Whatever time left, I think Miami maybe out of timeouts. They will have to run the length of the court to get a good shot up. Now if they make a half-court shot or some miracle shot, then there's no blame there.

 

There is no assurance of better D but there is no evidence of the opposite as well. I just said that since the players only have to stop that one shot. They don't have to worry about rebounds or layup.

 

And believe did Pop on his players to be able to execute a good defensive stance to preserve their lead without fouling. In fact it was not only the superstars he trusted considering he sat Duncan in favor of Diaw.

I said trust your superstars. Not replace your superstars with your bench. He trusted Manu and put TP and TD on the bench.

 

The Spurs had one last play to convert offensively but they didn't. They didn't pull it off as well in OT. This is a perfect case of the ball is in their hands for the win but the Spurs were not up to it. So the issue is not solely why they didn't foul. If they foul Bosh with 9seconds left they need to deliver the next play since surely the Heat will foul to get the final possession and could go for the win or tie. We don't know what will happen should that situation happen. even if Pop trust his superstars making an offensive play, we don't Know if they will deliver. ONe thing is sure though the Spurs was not able to deliver offensively even if they had their chance in regulation.

LBJ was guarding TP running the length of the court because they have no timeout to advance the ball in regulation. It wasn't a good offensive attempt and well defended. No blames on that play. It was either you make it or you don't. No one's blaming the last shot of TP.

 

What you are saying are the other mistakes that Pop made in OT. It just wasn't one play or one wrong decision that lost this game.

 

So what if only one man saw his potential? Its immaterial since coach siya at hindi commentarista. That is all one need ... A person that will believe in his coaching ability. A person who thinks that someone can make sound coaching decisions as the game is in progress and not making perfect decisions in hindsight like you , the writers or the commentators do. Bottomline. Naging coach siya kaya kahit man sabihing hindi siya ang pinakamagaling na coach coach pa rin siya hindi isang komentarista di naman coach o naging coach.

How many Spoelstra's have we seen? How many Riley's are there in this world? Anong so what? It means Erik S is an exception and not the rule. Kung mag-salita ka parang ang simple lang makuha yung coaching job na yun.

 

This is what these people do to make a living. No one will read your articles or listen to the commentaries and watch their debates on TV. Coaching decisions are different than coaching a whole game. I'm sure Magic knows basketball as well as Rose having played and part of many memorable finals (magic at least). The commentators are there because they know the sport. Van Gundy is another commentator who is a coach.

 

Kahit ball boy ka pero nakitaan ka ng potential maging coach, may magtitiwala. Pero perfect man ang maging desisyon mo in hindsight walang kwenta yan at tiyak malabo kang maging coach.

Kung perfect man ang desisyon mo in hindsight or you are a ballboy as you eloquently said, you still need someone who can see your potential and who will trust in you. You need the opportunity. How many have that opportunity? Edited July 14, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

1373813928[/url]' post='8779833']

Assuming Bosh will make his FTs, you give one more offensive play to the spurs. If the Spurs score 1 or 2 FTs or a basket or maybe even a 3, you can get anywhere from a 2,3-4 pt (1 if no FTs and turnover) but you still wasted time on the clock. If they win thru their offense or D, at least it is what they did. Whatever time left, I think Miami maybe out of timeouts. They will have to run the length of the court to get a good shot up. Now if they make a half-court shot or some miracle shot, then there's no blame there.

Yun na nga e, there is the possibility of a missed FT or a turnover that could expose the spurs to lose in regulation had they choose to foul. Sa palagay ko yan ang iniiwasan ni Pop. If they didn't foul the worst case is to go into ot.

So for the purpose of this doscussion lets assume upon inbound the heat immediately fouled and the spurs only converted only at most one ft so nasa heat ang bola with four seconds and they sank a hail mary three and win. For you as you said there is nothing to blame there kasi desisyon mong to foul ang nasunod. But yun naman mga naniniwalang hindi na dapat mag foul ang babatikos in hindsight. If they didn't foul nga naman posibleng ot lang kundi manalo outright.

Dalawa lagi ang scenario kaya wag magmagaling in hindsight.

 

 

There is no assurance of better D but there is no evidence of the opposite as well. I just said that since the players only have to stop that one shot. They don't have to worry about rebounds or layup.

 

Mismo ... Hindi natin pare-pareho alam what might have transpired nun time na nagdesisyon si Pop. Pero kasi humihirit kang dapat mag foul since nakita mo na ang nangyari.

Ganito lang yan , if ang desisyon ay mag foul obviously hindi na aabot sa puntong nakaoffensive rebound si bosh na humantong sa tres ni allen. Kasi iniiwasan mo makatira ng tres ang heat so bago pa lang tumira si lebron nag foul na ang spurs. That will leave plenty of time.

 

 

I said trust your superstars. Not replace your superstars with your bench. He trusted Manu and put TP and TD on the bench.

 

 

A good coach trust not only the superstars but up to the last guy on his bench ...

 

 

 

How many Spoelstra's have we seen? How many Riley's are there in this world? Anong so what? It means Erik S is an exception and not the rule. Kung mag-salita ka parang ang simple lang makuha yung coaching job na yun.

 

This is what these people do to make a living. No one will read your articles or listen to the commentaries and watch their debates on TV. Coaching decisions are different than coaching a whole game. I'm sure Magic knows basketball as well as Rose having played and part of many memorable finals (magic at least). The commentators are there because they know the sport. Van Gundy is another commentator who is a coach.

 

Kung perfect man ang desisyon mo in hindsight or you are a ballboy as you eloquently said, you still need someone who can see your potential and who will trust in you. You need the opportunity. How many have that opportunity?

 

 

Mahirap maging coach o kahit na assistant coach sa nba...kaya nga kung naging isa kang coach ay obviously mas magaling na hamak sila sa iyo o sa mga writers at commentators na bumabatikos sa kanya kasi hindi kayo naging coach.

Ang akin kasi ke galing ninyong manita in hindsight na alam nating kung si pop has that benefit when he was making his decision then i am pretty sure he would be calling the right play.

E kaso nga hindi niya po alam ano ang mangyayari. Ang alam niya pipilitin nilang hindi maka tres by playing good D. At siyempre inaasahan niyang no oofensive rebound. At kung minalas na nakarebound at naka shoot ng two ok lang kasi tumakbo ang oras at lamang pasila ng isa.

 

 

[Mango Man]

Re last season, hindsight is always 100%. Let's not second guess Pop anymore.

 

What do you think of the free agent signings they made this offseason - Pendergraph and Belinelli? Were they right in bringing back Manu? Or in letting Blair go?

 

Personally, i hope they find another good backup big man. Somehow, I don't think Pendergraph and Diaw and Bonner can get the job done.