The San Antonio Spur Model.

[Guest]

JayBirdHawk:

You're just the right age. I believe I should adopt you

for another grand daughter!

I'm game - I can be your Honorary Squawk Grand daughter.

[AHF]

The basketball hall of fame doesn't use any type of intelligent methodology. They get their panel together and sign up some worthy players and fill the slots nods. You have a better chance of making the NBA with an international career or a long college coaching job than being just a multiple All-Star in the NBA.

I don't know who is more of a lock for the Hall of Fame between Manu and Tim, but I'd say that the current way the basketball HOF runs they are very likely to be first ballot entries. Tim because he is one of the greatest players in the game's history. Manu because he is a good player with a great international resume. On his merits as an NBA player, Manu is not a HOF, IMO. (Neither is Robert Horry for another name mentioned earlier in the thread). But with the need to fill the hall with diversity rather than excellence, Manu is a no brainer selection.

[lethalweapon3]

Just posting scary pics for balance. This thread's getting way too adorable!

~lw3

[macdaddy]

Just posting scary pics for balance. This thread's getting way too adorable!

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

Uh-oh. Joe's in town? Who's got a scarier grill, Ivan or Joe's truck?

(I dunno what's gotten into me, I've been derailing threads all day!)

~lw3

[ag82]

They recognize and develop talent according.

I don't think drafting manu or parker on the hawks gets either of them anywhere near the HOF.

This whole argument can be made basically for any coach/organization that has great players.

What if Josh Smith was drafted and developed by the Spurs instead of us? I bet people look at him completely differently than they do now. He probably has a couple of rings too.

[Buzzard]

The Pacers have one thing in common with the Spurs... They are well coached. They are no where near as talented. They cannot even be called a poor man's Spurs. I see no hall of famers on the Pacers team. However, they have great coaching.

Hibbert could be a poor mans Duncan, and George could be called a poor mans Manu. But they have nothing resembling Tony Parker yet.

[AHF]

I don't think the process is about finding players who replicate someone else's ability. The Patriots and Spurs to me are two model franchises that have core principles of management that have allowed them to enjoy unusually sustained success built around a HOF player. They have seen evolution on their rosters in terms of personnel; they have evolved their offensive and defensive schemes; etc. I don't think that if you use a Spurs model, for example, you aren't doing it right if you end up building around a Kevin Durant instead of a Tim Duncan. In fact, the Thunder and Falcons are probably good examples of the fact that you can take a culture or model from one place to another and transplant it and have some real success even if you aren't replicating the previous team's personnel and approach across the board.