Start Hill-Parker Backcourt

[SenorSpur]

Originally Posted by kobyz

i agree, parker need to pick up his defense, it can't go on like this, maybe benching him for couple of games is the only solution to make him understand that.

There's no doubt that Parker defense has been surprisingly atrocious. It's almost as though he's saving himself for the offensive end. THAT is what this team doesn't need - another bad defender on the court. There is no excuse for it. This is no time for TP to start turning into a "sacred cow."

Some guys like Mason, Bonner and Finley are simply bad defenders and there's not much that will change there. Pop has taken strides to help improve the overall team defense by replacing Finley for Bogans and sitting down Bonner. He needs to go the extra mile and demand that everyone be accountable on the defensive side or they sit - no matter who they are. Parker included. I'm sure he already does this, but it's not sinking in to some.

[ElNono]

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

What's wrong with playing our best players as starters and giving them the most minutes. That's basically what every team in sports does.

Parker
Manu
Duncan
Jefferson
McDyess

This would be a formidable starting lineup and because of our better depth we could then bring in

Hill
Blair
Bonner
Bogan
Mason

Not a bad second team for a few minutes against the other teams second unit.

Spot players Finley and Ratliff, Hairston, Ian, Haislip.

It's because we're too good, so we need to somehow handicap ourselves to make the game more interesting.

[EmptyMan]

G Hill should get to start based on his Defense alone.

[TJastal]

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

G Hill should get to start based on his Defense alone.

Careful, statements like these will get the fanbois frothing at the mouth.

[eisfeld]

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

What's wrong with playing our best players as starters and giving them the most minutes. That's basically what every team in sports does.

Because the Spurs have to manage the minutes for Duncan, Manu and Dice. Manu never was a 35 mpg player and isn't that effective in that role. Playing Timmy for extended minutes would lead to him being tired later in the season and maybe more injury prone. Same goes with Dice.

[Death In June]

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

Pop feeling obligated on giving Finley and Mason PT out of respect will hurt this team more than help in the long run.


Pop may be a great X's and O's coach, perhaps the best in the NBA.

But his respect and loyalty with some players runs on fumes sometimes.


I'm hoping Spurs are offered a can't say no deal for their expiring contracts, so this team can actually reach it's full potential.

People are writing off RMJ a little too soon. I don't think he's been able to establish any sort of rhythm with the playing time he's gotten. Too many players are being cycled in and out, and he's been the odd man out. He isn't going to be any good from from the bench though. He's only ever showed that he could be decent when playing as the starting sg.

[SenorSpur]

Originally Posted by Death In June

People are writing off RMJ a little too soon. I don't think he's been able to establish any sort of rhythm with the playing time he's gotten. Too many players are being cycled in and out, and he's been the odd man out. He isn't going to be any good from from the bench though. He's only ever showed that he could be decent when playing as the starting sg.

Before the FO or us fans ship out RMJ, I'd like to see him back in a starter's role. See him get some rhythm and confidence. He's still a liability at backup PG and on thee defensive side, but when he's on, he can be an unconscious, cold-blooded shooter.

[wildbill2u]

Originally Posted by eisfeld

Because the Spurs have to manage the minutes for Duncan, Manu and Dice. Manu never was a 35 mpg player and isn't that effective in that role. Playing Timmy for extended minutes would lead to him being tired later in the season and maybe more injury prone. Same goes with Dice.

They are still going to get the most minutes, no matter who starts or how you manage the minutes.

Make the most out of those minutes by playing them together. The reason for putting Manu on the bench was to give some firepower to the bench players when they came into the game. Our new bench has some firepower of its own

[HarlemHeat37]

According to the numbers, our best defensive lineup this year has been..

PG Parker
SG Hill
SF Jefferson
PF McDyess
C Duncan

[lurker23]

Kind of late to the party here, but I think this is an idea worth trying. Actually, mountainballer and I were talking about this a few days ago in this thread:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138955

Originally Posted by mountainballer

the question about the perfect role for Hill with this team will become more and more relevant, the more he develops.
Tony is currently the Spurs best player and will be for some more years. (let's assume he gets an extension till 2015).
Hill could soon be the 2nd best guard on the Spurs (not this year, as Manu showed last night, but maybe next season?) and he is young, so you want to play him 33-35 minutes and not be just Tony's back up in the first place.
then the question is: will the Spurs back court of the future be Tony+Hill? if yes, what other wing player would it take to balance for the lack of size and sub par 3pt shooting. or is the Spurs future small ball anyhow?

Originally Posted by lurker23

Some very good questions. I think there's a distinct possibility that Tony+Hill is the starting back court of the future, with the Spurs bringing in another player to be Tony's backup. I don't think the size is a major issue, as Hill's wingspan allows him to guard most 2-guards, though it could become a problem if Hill is assigned to the opponent's PG (e.g.- Chris Paul), and Tony has to guard the opposing SG.

As far as the SF to match with these two, I agree with what you implied: it should be a long 3 who can hit the three-pointer (though I wouldn't give up quite yet on Parker or Hill developing a respectable three-point shot). I think the answer is probably sitting right in front of our face: Richard Jefferson. Remember that he's only 2 years older than Parker. The major question will be what kind of contract he demands in 2011, and whether his Spurs experience will convince him to sign an extension of the long-term/hometown discount variety. (Also, we'll have to see if his near 40% on 3-pointers last year was a fluke or sign of things to come.)

As far as Kori's idea of keeping Hill as Tony's backup (removing Hill at the 6 minute mark for Manu, bringing him back in at the start of the 2nd quarter when Tony sits), I think it's something that CAN be done, but I don't know if it's something that is necessarily easy rotation-wise in the long-term (especially when you get into more unpredictable second half rotations). While this would certainly be the goal, I think we'd have to accept the fact that once in a while this would mean RMJ or (preferably) Manu being the primary ball-handler (probably 2-6 minutes per game).

[Phila_Chamberlain]

Likely won't happen. Pop wants him coming off the bench. However pop does like them playing together.

[murpjf88]

Who's going to back up parker? Mason? No thanks.

[timaios]

Originally Posted by murpjf88

Who's going to back up parker? Mason? No thanks.

Manu can play 10-12 min at PG.

[rascal]

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I get it -- they are short. But GH is long, so I don't care he's a couple inches too short. Against most teams, this backcourt would work. They play well together and it gives the Spurs more versatility offensively (plus GH's D would be good to start the game).

Also TP needs to feed RJ early in the game. RJ obviously can't work his way into the offense and needs to have the ball more from the get-go. Tony can distribute early and score late. He'll still get his.

I've been saying start Hill at the 2 since last year. Its time to trade Manu and get a starting caliber center like Camby. Jefferson is still a capable 20 point scorer and adding Camby and more shots and minutes to Blair and Hill the Spurs will not miss a beat losing manu. And getting Camby gives them a true center which they will need to matchup with the bigger Lakers.

[mingus]

i still say Bogans should start. i can't see him as a bench guy now, and i can't ever see him evolving into a bench guy later on because he needs an open look to score ala Bruce Bowen and those guys just don't work well off the bench imo. Hill can score on opposing team's bench defenses he's just not making the effort to do it as much as he should imo.

[mingus]

and Parker looked SLOW yesterday. hopefully he gets his legs back.

one other thing i noticed that he's not doing (even before he went down) is he's not using his mid-range game. eveything seemed to be drives, and he took a couple of hard falls early on this season, which could actually still be affecting him. i'd like to see him establish his mid-range game again.

another thing: whatever ever happened to the talk of posting up Richard Jefferson? haven't seen that happen yet. another thing with RJ is he just stands around; he doesn't cut to the basket. maybe it's because he's used to be the go to guy from last year... but esp when Duncan has the ball in the post i'd like to see less standing around from him. Duncan and Manu are great passers and he could benefit from them more than he has.

Blair... i'd like to see get the ball more offensively.

McDyess is money from 15. he needs to get that shot more often. hopefully last night was a sign of things to come.

those are some of the kinks in the offense that need to be straigtened out imo.

[SenorSpur]

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I get it -- they are short. But GH is long, so I don't care he's a couple inches too short. Against most teams, this backcourt would work. They play well together and it gives the Spurs more versatility offensively (plus GH's D would be good to start the game).

Also TP needs to feed RJ early in the game. RJ obviously can't work his way into the offense and needs to have the ball more from the get-go. Tony can distribute early and score late. He'll still get his.

Kori, you must be a soothsayer. Apparently, Pop was thinking the same thing.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139585

[ElNono]

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

Kori, you must be a soothsayer. Apparently, Pop was thinking the same thing.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139585

Not saying Kori is not a visionary, but... Did you actually watch last game?

[SenorSpur]

Originally Posted by ElNono

Not saying Kori is not a visionary, but... Did you actually watch last game?

Of course. Yet she's advocated this pairing for a while now - long before that game.

[ElNono]

Originally Posted by SenorSpur

Of course. Yet she's advocated this pairing for a while now - long before that game.

She did? I missed that.
I'm impressed now.

[rascal]

Hill is not a true pg. He plays better at the 2 and can rise to be a star in the league if given the chance at the 2.

[SenorSpur]

Hill is a much-improved player and he makes things happen. He's also a very good defender to be so young. While they will be a quicker backcourt, I just worry that it's a backcourt that lacks length and height.

[rascal]

Originally Posted by ElNono

She did? I missed that.
I'm impressed now.

I'm with you I don't remember seeing her say this last year.

[lurker23]

I imagine Kori may have expressed this opinion even earlier, but here's one example:


http://www.woai.com/content/sports/s...mNSgrxb3A.cspx

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis, April 28, 2009

In 2006, the Mavs changed the complexion of the series by inserting Devin Harris into the starting lineup. Harris' penetration, defense and activity level were invaluable qualities for Dallas. That strategy is something the Spurs can borrow by playing Parker and Hill together for long stretches.

With a Parker and Hill duo, the Spurs suddenly won't appear as sedentary and unathletic. They can also better match the Mavericks' personnel and if they get out and run, that duo could help the Spurs get a few much needed effortless conversions in transition.

[The Truth #6]

Inevitably they will find time on the court together, however I think going out of the way to start them together creates more problems. Hill is comfortable coming off the bench as is Manu, who plays better with Hill than Tony does. With Hill starting this will create more confusion for RMJ, Bogans, and RJ.

I still believe we should have continued with Bogans starting to see how that was going to work. People assume it was going to fail before it had a chance to fail. We're performing experiments without waiting for the results. Where's the analysis in that?

The goal should be for Tony to find a way to integrate RJ into the offense. To me that is still the central issue.

With either Bogans or Hill starting our defense will improve over Finley or RMJ. But with Hill starting it's basically saying either RMJ will never play again or he'll only play backup PG. These are two bad options.

Hill is a good player so he will contribute. That's obvious. What isn't clear is how this will affect the rest of the team. I think it's a dumb move until proven wrong.

[timvp]

Bump.


Nice call.

If the Hill doesn't start the rest of the year, that will be a mistake. An added plus is that he's much better and defending swingmen than point guards.

And while RJ was supposed to run with TP, that really hasn't worked because RJ isn't that fast. Hill, on the other hand, forms a nice running twosome with Parker.