Tone; And The Ramifications.

[Blackjack]

Matt Bonner.

That 6-9, red-headed, basketball-playin' fool.

You know you love him, but you just can't understand how it is that he demands to start alongside Tim.

We've all heard the logic and even somewhat come to accept it, well, maybe not accept as much as been beaten into it's submission.

Watching the Spurs fall to the Bulls wasn't unexpected or disheartening, the Bulls are a very solid defensive team that possesses both the continuity and chemistry to give them a leg up over a team like the Spurs at this early stage, but seeing Bonner and Finley starting for the second night in a row had me asking a question for the bigger picture.

Why?

Well corporate knowledge and know-how for a team with significant turnover would seem to be a pretty good reason. And Bonner and Finley do both space the floor for Tim and Tony, so, offensively, there's definitely credence to the logic. But do the pro's really outweigh the con's?

Don't answer that; rhetorical question..

See, I don't mind the idea of Bonner playing alongside Tim to give him space and get him on track and in a flow. It's a perfectly sound basketball move and one that's been proven effective. Doing it from the start however, taxes Tim and the defense more than it benefits the offense. Plus, there's something to be said for setting a tone.

Pop's been preaching how this team needs to get back to their defensive iden y; that trademark of theirs that netted them four les. So how does the starting of Bonner and Finley coincide with that demand?

Well, it doesn't, but what are you going to do?

You could go ahead and start 'Dyess next to Tim, it's what most expect to see come the end of the year anyway, but how wise would that really be? Having 'Dyess come off the bench is easier to limit his minutes, he is 35 and the owner of a pretty injury-riddled past, and he's got a certain comfort level there given his time in Detroit. You'd definitely have a better defensive tone set from the jump, but for how long, and would it even be sustainable for what hopes to be a one-hundred plus game schedule?

With the age of Tim, 'Dyess and Theo, the only one's capable of setting a defensive tone in the front court, the answer's probably not; which makes the starting of Bonner understandable, even if not ideal.

I think it was Rusty a while back that used the analogy of an innings-eater in regards to Bonner; logic I've ascribed to, but wasn't smart enough to come up with that particular analogy. Bonner starting is a stop-gap measure and an offensive ploy. The Spurs' top four bigs would seem to be: Tim, 'Dyess, Bonner and Blair, and the latter two can't play together defensively. So you start Bonner, bring 'Dyess off the bench and Blair can come in for Tim. Makes sense, right? Well, it does given the personnel and for the immediate future, but how optimistic would you feel about that rotation come April and May?

A night like tonight only reminds you of the trouble young athletic teams have given the Spurs over recent years. But you could also dismiss it considering those young and athletic teams aren't the one's usually in the playoff picture for the Spurs to contend with.

But seeing the Spurs roll out the Bonner and Finley duo in the starting-five, even knowing every bit as well the athletic disadvantage they'd have defensively and on the boards, a defensive tone is something Pop doesn't seem to believe he can set with the roster as is; at least he can't sustain it for the long haul.

I'm a firm believer in setting the tone as a team and imposing your style of play on the opponent. But I just can't see how this Spurs team can reclaim their defensive exploits of yesteryear on a nightly basis; not at the elite championship-level at least -- they'll be a good defensive team by the numbers but not the imposing, feared team of the past. --

So, Bonner starts for now; as does Finley.

The defensive tone, I think most of us would like to see, won't be set and the Spurs will be left to deal with the ramifications.

The question is, are the ramifications of Bonner starting any worse than if they were forced to play 'Dyess as a starter, for all one-hundred plus games, to set that all-important defensive tone?

When I ask myself that question and I look at the front line's in the way of getting a le, I can only come to one conclusion.

The Spurs, for as good as they are and as much as they've improved, still have another move that needs to be made; possibly two.

[Mel_13]

Thoughtful, balanced and well-reasoned. Somewhat out of place among the hysterical ramblings that inevitably bloom after a loss.

The fact is that the offseason moves got the Spurs back in the conversation, it didn't make them favorites. Further, while there is much talk of acquiring additional help on the wing, the area of greater need is in the middle.

I agree with almost everything you've presented here. Unfortunately, I'm not too optimistic that it will serve as a launching point for intelligent discourse on the subject. Sadly, those interested in such a discussion are badly outnumbered.

[EricB]

McDyess himself said he wasn't in shape.

Take it up with him.

[Bruno]

Spurs are going to be one of the worst shot blocking team in the league (somewhere in the bottom three).

While I think shot-blocking is overrated, Spurs clearly don't have the players to be a great defensive team.

[Blackjack]

I agree with almost everything you've presented here. Unfortunately, I'm not too optimistic that it will serve as a launching point for intelligent discourse on the subject. Sadly, those interested in such a discussion are badly outnumbered.

McDyess himself said he wasn't in shape.

Take it up with him.

[Blackjack]

Spurs are going to be one of the worst shot blocking team in the league (somewhere in the bottom three).

While I think shot-blocking is overrated, Spurs clearly don't have the players to be a great defensive team.

Sadly, I agree.

I also don't like that RJ's attempting to lose 15lbs during the season to up his quickness and try to be something he clearly isn't; at least not at this stage of his career. I'd much rather him give a little more attention to detail and be more of the physical-type defender that can guard the 'Melo's and Artest's of the world.

If the Spurs are looking for someone to approximate the Bowen role, they'd better give Malik an opportunity or make a deal for someone; I don't believe Bogans is that guy.

The Spurs' defense is widely founded on the principles of percentages, so the system can disguise individual weaknesses if players put in the effort and get to their spots, but without a dominant, disruptive force on the perimeter to go along with a healthy and focused Duncan, there is no 'Spurs defense.'

[CubanSucks]

Please tell me this is an article and you didn't take the time to write all that.

[Blackjack]

Please tell me this is an article and you didn't take the time to write all that.

Sorry.

It didn't take all that long if it makes you feel any better.

[Death In June]

At this point, I'd rather see Ian starting ahead of Bonner. You know what you have with Bonner, and it isn't great. Test the unknowns while the season is young.

[CubanSucks]

Sorry.

It didn't take all that long if it makes you feel any better.

Wow so it all just came naturally huh? You need to write a in book

[the crimson blur]

Funny how we have a spectacular defensive half (holding the Bulls to 11-41, 27%, on non-second chance points) and people start thinking we didn't "set the tone" defensively. You could argue that getting defensive rebounds is part of an overall defensive scheme. Laying the blame on Bonner is pretty hard with that angle too though, considering we were the #1 defensive rebounding team last year with him starting. Our failure to grab defensive boards was a failure of our effort, not a failure of our talent.

Its amazing to me how posters here interpret games completely out of the context of what actually happened on the floor.

[lennyalderette]

we need another real defensive player! i think bonner should stay and i do like finley as a BACKUP def. but i say we package ian, bogans,finley and shoot even haislip for a solid big defender down low, dont know who, but if we want defense they do need to expirement when finley is sucking that bad!! let hairston play hes young, and can def bring some energy. it wasnt about the bulls being geniuses 2night it was about them running on us, and pop thinks finley can run still!!! i mean they used their athleticism the whole game to beat us. why in the wouldnt pop plau marcus haislip, and blair (earlier), and hairston if they wanted to just out run us

[lennyalderette]

im not demanding trades here so people dont jump on me im just saying if hes not going to play the young guys when we need energy theyre absolutely useless to us. and if pop is going to act stubborn then he should just trade all his young guys for old guys. it seriously baffles me how hes playing a soon to be 37 yr old over mason?

[Spurs#1]

I just can't believe that Pop really thinks Bonner and Finley are major pieces to a championship puzzle?

[objective]

You could argue that getting defensive rebounds is part of an overall defensive scheme.

wouldn't every coach ever make the argument that defense isn't done until the rebound is secured?

[the crimson blur]

wouldn't every coach ever make the argument that defense isn't done until the rebound is secured?

Sure, but the problem with defending against offensive rebounds is that the rebounder is usually in a prime position to score. The problem wasn't our defense after the rebound, but the fact that we forfeited so many rebounds in the first place. And frankly, I don't think this roster lacks personnel for defensive rebounding at all, as evidenced by our superb marks last year and our further upgrades in that department this year (Blair, McDyess).

The argument being made by the topic creator is that the team lacks personnel for being a top defensive squad. I don't think this is true at all. We have Tim Duncan. The discussion should end there, but when you add in George Hill, Manu Ginobili, Antonio McDyess, Richard Jefferson, and Gregg Popovich, it becomes absurd. Whatever defensive liabilities we have pale in comparison to what other top teams have to deal with (Farmar and Derek Fisher, Shaq & Big Z, etc.). We didn't play to our potential tonight. No need to freak out.

[sabar]

We have the personnel to be a defensive team, but we have holes in the defense as to certain individuals. I think Bonner is good enough defensively for his minutes, but Finley does not have the quickness to defend a young team like the Bulls. He got burned over and over again throughout the game, especially during the small ball part. Pretty painful to watch. His minutes are way too high for a role player that should be used to spot up some threes. I'd rather Hill or Manu get most of his time as they can at least defend.

I think our defensive problem lies on our wings and not on our bigs at the moment. Why? Because we have Tim Duncan of course. No doubt the Spurs are feeling the loss of Bowen this past year. A lot of this lies on Finley who hasn't been quick enough to defend for quite a while, but was especially on display tonight against a young team.

Hopefully come playoff time Jefferson will be defending with the best of them and Manu will have most of Finley's minutes. Our weakest points are Finley and Bonner and as time goes on and people get adjusted, their minutes SHOULD drop and we should get more defensive.

You don't need every player on the team to play defense. The problem is that right now the new guys are adjusting and it is inevitable that the old guys will have a lot of play time. I just hope Pop realizes all this. This team definitely has the potential to defend.

[Johnny RIngo]

I just can't believe that Pop really thinks Bonner and Finley are major pieces to a championship puzzle?

I can't believe it either. Spurs are not going to win another championship with Finley logging 20+ minutes.

[ezau]

We're missing shots and Finley was shooting way too many shots while logging in too many minutes. I know that Pop wants to spread the minutes, but Finley shouldn't be playing that much anymore. Fact is, the Bulls wanted to win and they executed very well. The Spurs just looked sluggish and they're legs aren't with them tonight. Time to recuperate and kick some ass next game

[Mel_13]

We're missing shots and Finley was shooting way too many shots while logging in too many minutes. I know that Pop wants to spread the minutes, but Finley shouldn't be playing that much anymore. Fact is, the Bulls wanted to win and they executed very well. The Spurs just looked sluggish and they're legs aren't with them tonight. Time to recuperate and kick some ass next game

If you want to argue about the minutes, fine. Just realize that last night that would mean playing Bogans or giving more minutes to Mason, who was 0-4. Manu and RJ both played about as many minutes as you would expect and both shot poorly. I'd like to see Hairston have a shot as some of Finley's minutes, but he wasn't available last night.

Now saying he was shooting way too many shots does not match the reality of the game. He only took five shots, making two. Nine Spurs played at least 17 minutes. Six took more shots than Finley, the other two were both 0-4. Whatever his flaws last night may have been, taking too many shots was not one of them.

[the crimson blur]

We have the personnel to be a defensive team, but we have holes in the defense as to certain individuals. I think Bonner is good enough defensively for his minutes, but Finley does not have the quickness to defend a young team like the Bulls. He got burned over and over again throughout the game, especially during the small ball part. Pretty painful to watch. His minutes are way too high for a role player that should be used to spot up some threes. I'd rather Hill or Manu get most of his time as they can at least defend.

I think our defensive problem lies on our wings and not on our bigs at the moment. Why? Because we have Tim Duncan of course. No doubt the Spurs are feeling the loss of Bowen this past year. A lot of this lies on Finley who hasn't been quick enough to defend for quite a while, but was especially on display tonight against a young team.

Hopefully come playoff time Jefferson will be defending with the best of them and Manu will have most of Finley's minutes. Our weakest points are Finley and Bonner and as time goes on and people get adjusted, their minutes SHOULD drop and we should get more defensive.

You don't need every player on the team to play defense. The problem is that right now the new guys are adjusting and it is inevitable that the old guys will have a lot of play time. I just hope Pop realizes all this. This team definitely has the potential to defend.

Great take. I particularly enjoyed how you gave Bonner some credit; his defensive prowess is highly underrated on this board. The fact that people put him and Finley in the same sentence baffles me; Bonner's defense really is good enough if his role in the 20 or so minutes I think it will be.

Ultimately, our defense is a work in progress. However, regardless of how much we can improve, I think we defended the initial possession rather well tonight, maybe better than we ever did in all but a few choice games last year. The fact that we were that good this early is only a good sign.

I think people are confused as to why Bonner and Fin are getting the roles that they are at this point of the season. In fact, I think Pop may be right in starting them, at least for now. Bonner's situation has been spelled out already; Blair needs Dice to check his defensive inefficiencies and Bonner helps Timmy offensively. What people need to remember is that this is not an insurmountable problem in the rotation caused by the downsides of our talent. Blair has great defensive potential, particularly against bigs with high centers of gravity . Remember how the Lakers frontline got wrecked by the very small Rockets frontline? Bigs with high centers of gravity lean on their defender when making their post dribbles. When you have a smaller guy like Blair guarding them, you ruin their balance. Add Blair's length, great hands, high basketball IQ, and superb positioning, and you get a guy who has terrific defensive potential. As Graydon Gordian said in the Daily Dime recently:

Before the game, Gregg Popovich said every aspect of Blair's game except rebounding needs improvement. And, like nearly every aspect of his game except rebounding, he is far from his ceiling as a defender. He has a preternatural sense of spacing that lends itself to the complicated rotation defenses Popovich require. And he has the core body strength to be physical without being foul prone.
But as things currently stand, he is both physical and foul prone. He plays far too much defense with his hands, and far too little with his feet and chest. His unbelievably long reach only exacerbates the problem. Once he commits himself to the necessity of lateral movement, his length will be an asset. Currently, his 7' 3" wingspan serves as a crutch.

Certainly Blair's defensive struggles aren't for lack of effort. If anything, a more tempered approach might do the rookie some good.
After the game I spoke with Antonio McDyess about his tutelage of Blair. McDyess mentioned that after Popovich pulled Blair from the game because of one too many unnecessary fouls, Blair was hard on himself as he returned to the bench.

"He was frustrated because he went in the game and things didn't go the way they normally do for him," said McDyess. "For me, on the bench, I'm sitting there like, 'man, this is your second game, and you got a second half. You gotta put that behind you. We got a second half and 80 more games to go.'"

Blair was a great defender in Pitt (though foul prone). I have confidence that he can at least become a serviceable one by the end of this season. If he does, a lot of our rotational problems are fixed cleanly. But lets suppose he doesn't, which is also possible, what do we do then? Well, we live with greater minutes for Bonner. The onus is on Blair to improve; you can't get minutes for the Spurs without better defensive efforts. The fact that he is so passionate about defense is a great sign.

But now the question is, why does Pop start Finley? I think its rather simple: he'd prefer to start Manu but is afraid to injure him and he views Roger as a player more suited to be off the bench. Finley was hot in the preseason and Pop wants to ride that wave at the very least. The reason why Roger is a better player off the bench is that Finley has a hard time contributing in spot minutes, and Roger can also shoot off the dribble really well. Roger can create his own shot and Fin can't; the starting lineup has plenty of guys who can make plays so he put Roger on the bench so he could best use his abilities. Fin is also used to playing big regular season minutes and Roger much less so, as seen by how Roger wore out as the season progressed. Also, I don't think he considers Roger to be a much better defender at all, so the defense lost, at least to him, isn't much.

[SpurNation]

It's really simple. Our offensive scheme does not lend to Offensive rebounds.

The Spurs space the floor. That alone doesn't bode well for garnishing rebounds off of missed shots.

It's not as much of lack of talent or who's playing at the time to do so than it is a lack of personnel in the right position to do so.

When the 3's are falling instead of failing and the penetration is producing instead of missing...the team doesn't have to worry about offensive rebounds. But if these two aspects about our offensive scheme is'nt working...don't expect high numbers in the offensive rebound department.

Starting McDyess or Blair or Ratliff or Mahinmi over Bonner isn't going to change or make a difference in that category. Speed somewhat might if you want to wear out your post players in 10 minutes of action.

What I would suggest or implement is a different offensive strategy in B2B situations that would allow for more involvement of our bigs in scoring possibilities from the post which also would allow the team better opportunity for offensive rebounds. A team of Duncan, Blair and Jefferson along with said different offensive scheme in those situations just might be what the doctor ordered to combat the physical demands of playing B2B's.

[Mel_13]

Great take. I particularly enjoyed how you gave Bonner some credit; his defensive prowess is highly underrated on this board. The fact that people put him and Finley in the same sentence baffles me; Bonner's defense really is good enough if his role in the 20 or so minutes I think it will be.

Ultimately, our defense is a work in progress. However, regardless of how much we can improve, I think we defended the initial possession rather well tonight, maybe better than we ever did in all but a few choice games last year. The fact that we were that good this early is only a good sign.

I think people are confused as to why Bonner and Fin are getting the roles that they are at this point of the season. In fact, I think Pop may be right in starting them, at least for now. Bonner's situation has been spelled out already; Blair needs Dice to check his defensive inefficiencies and Bonner helps Timmy offensively. What people need to remember is that this is not an insurmountable problem in the rotation caused by the downsides of our talent. Blair has great defensive potential, particularly against bigs with high centers of gravity . Remember how the Lakers frontline got wrecked by the very small Rockets frontline? Bigs with high centers of gravity lean on their defender when making their post dribbles. When you have a smaller guy like Blair guarding them, you ruin their balance. Add Blair's length, great hands, high basketball IQ, and superb positioning, and you get a guy who has terrific defensive potential. As Graydon Gordian said in the Daily Dime recently:



Blair was a great defender in Pitt (though foul prone). I have confidence that he can at least become a serviceable one by the end of this season. If he does, a lot of our rotational problems are fixed cleanly. But lets suppose he doesn't, which is also possible, what do we do then? Well, we live with greater minutes for Bonner. The onus is on Blair to improve; you can't get minutes for the Spurs without better defensive efforts. The fact that he is so passionate about defense is a great sign.

But now the question is, why does Pop start Finley? I think its rather simple: he'd prefer to start Manu but is afraid to injure him and he views Roger as a player more suited to be off the bench. Finley was hot in the preseason and Pop wants to ride that wave at the very least. The reason why Roger is a better player off the bench is that Finley has a hard time contributing in spot minutes, and Roger can also shoot off the dribble really well. Roger can create his own shot and Fin can't; the starting lineup has plenty of guys who can make plays so he put Roger on the bench so he could best use his abilities. Fin is also used to playing big regular season minutes and Roger much less so, as seen by how Roger wore out as the season progressed. Also, I don't think he considers Roger to be a much better defender at all, so the defense lost, at least to him, isn't much.

If you continue to write this well and make this much sense, I don't see much of a future for you here.

Great post

[benefactor]

If he does, a lot of our rotational problems are fixed cleanly. But lets suppose he doesn't, which is also possible, what do we do then?

One name....Jeff Foster.

[to21]

Remember...."it doesn't matter who starts."