Pop can't coach backup point guards

[timvp]

Watching George Hill come in and play dominant defense against the Suns was great to see. But the circumstances had me pissed at Pop. If the Steve Nash wouldn't have gotten hot, Hill was headed to a DNP-CD. Pop looks like he's on the road to, once again, destroying the confidence and the effectiveness of the team's backup point guard.

I understand wanting to give Mason the ball more often. I agree that he needs more touches than he's gotten in the previous six weeks. But that is doable with him at the shooting guard position. There's no reason to play him at point to get him touches. Just let Mason run pick-and-rolls in the half court set ... especially since that's what he ends up doing when he plays point.

With Mason at point, Pop is setting it up so that Hill will be out of the rotation once Ginobili returns. I just don't agree with that. Hill brings too much to the table. Sure he has some warts but an athlete who can rebound, concentrate on defense and play unselfish basketball should fit perfectly into the system of Spurs Basketball.

Basically, the only two point guards to survive Pop's point guard treatment over the years have been AJ and Parker. Both players survived because they were supremely confident in their own abilities. Every other point guard was murdered by Pop.

Kerr came in as a high profile reserve point guard fresh off of three championships and he was utterly useless in his first stint under Pop. Antonio Daniels wilted under Pop before going on to become one of the best backup point guards of the last decade. Speedy Claxton is remembered for his Game 6 against the Nets performance but he had many downs as ups in his Spurs career.

Terry Porter came to the Spurs as a premier backup point guard and instantly turned into a liability. Charlie Ward, Nick Van Exel and Damon Stoudamire came to the Spurs playing decent basketball but Pop swiftly ended their careers. Last year with Stoudamire was amazing. After playing well and helping out the first few games, Pop told Stoudamire to stop passing so much and start shooting more. The result? Pop benched Stoudamire for becoming a chucker.

Then there's the lovable Beno Udrih. No doubt he's not the easiest player to root for but he was talented and had more than enough ability to be a backup point guard. But Pop chewed him up and spit him out like all the others.

Now it looks like Hill is about to go down that road. Pop has already taken away his ballhandling responsibilities. His minutes are about to evaporate. Then comes the part where Pop is surprised when the backup point guard doesn't play with supreme confidence when he suddenly finds himself back in the mix. And then the story ends with the backup point guard getting traded for pennies on the dollar as the Spurs welcome in the next poor sap who's about to get eaten alive by Pop's inability to coach backup point guards.

I think the main problem is Pop doesn't know what he wants from a backup point. He'll bench a backup point for playing bad defense but he'll also bench a backup point for playing good defense but not being aggressive enough offensively. It's like he doesn't realize that all backup point guards have some sort of flaws. That's why they are backup point guards.

This latest giving up on Hill just doesn't make much sense. When it comes down to it, the move will basically be taking any minutes Hill would get and give them to Finley.

Good luck to Hill and hopefully he can persevere and keep the job the next time he's given the chance.

/rant

[usckk]

Good post! I thought about this before too, so I am curious what other people think.

However, I don't think its just for the backup PG position. If you look at other positions, Pop has "destroyed" them as well, maybe not as much. Look at Barry as an example before he came here. He was a different player--a much more complete player. As a Spurs, Barry just turned in to a spot up 3 point shooter and not much else.

As for Ward and Stoudemire, I think the sample size is too small. It's a norm for a player not to come in and play well right away. And one can only imagine that additional difficulty in having to play the PG position

I think mainly it all about the player's mentality. If they are weak, they will fail. If they are strong, they'll make it and take the challenge. Mason is a great example of a confident guy (as evident by his 4 game-winners this year). And because of it, he has been able to play like his usual self (before he was a Spurs) and even surpassed it. Besides confidence, raw talent can also help one surpass the difficulty in assimilating to Pop's system.

I think you are right though in that Pop is harder on PGs.

[usckk]

I need to think about this more. I'll be back after my classes today :)

[timvp]

Barry got plenty of chances. He didn't always have consistent minutes but it wasn't like he was ever completely out of competition for minutes. And actually, Barry would benefit when Pop would give up on point guards.

Great coach overall but I can't think of a backup point guard who could thrive under him. It's basically impossible to please him and stay on his good side from the backup point guard position.

Shoot too much? Benched for being a chucker. Shoot too little? Benched for not being aggressive enough. Concentrate on defense? Benched for not doing enough offensively. Hustle player? Benched for not being consistent enough.

It says something in each of the four championship runs, Pop changed his backup point guard at some point during the playoffs. He even changed the backup point guard a couple of times a few of those championships.

[usckk]

I agree. Pop is definitely hard on PG.

[usckk]

Here's another thought: Maybe Pop is just wanting to narrow down the rotation. Perhaps Hill's decreasing minutes is more Mason being great than Hill doing anything wrong.

(p.s: I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just putting thoughts out there) :)

[polandprzem]

Here's another thought: Maybe Pop is just wanting to narrow down the rotation. Perhaps Hill's decreasing minutes is more Mason being great than Hill doing anything wrong.

(p.s: I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just putting thoughts out there) :)

nope

He put Udoka and Hairston to eat Hills minutes.

[ElNono]

If anything, and unlike most of the ones before him, Hill can play defense. And that might be what saves him from the Pop's meat grinder. That's what has kept Vaughn in the mix all these years. At the end of the day you have to remember that our starting PG is a superstar that's young enough to play for long stretches, and so the backup PG role is somewhat limited these days.
There's also the factor of being a rookie, and coaches like Pop, Larry Brown, even Sloan, they rather stick with the vets than having to live with the rook's mistakes. That's why you'll see Finley taking Hill's minutes this season. I think if Hill can withstand a season or two on the bench, eventually Pop will call his number more often.
Even seasoned players like Oberto and Bonner had to sit out a season or two before they become regulars in the rotation. That seems to be the Spurs way.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Timvp, I generally share your opinions and takes, but I disagree on this one. At the least, it's too early to say that.

IMO Pop is still in an experimenting mode and unlike in previous seasons I don't think he's already got a set in stone view for the playoff rotation. This could be a good or a bad thing, I can't really say,but we're seeing a lot of unorthodox decision making from Pop right now ( last night's game,I think, was won exactly because of his unorthodox decisions ). Mason handling the backup PG role hasn't really been a big hit so far, but I think it's due to two things :

1. Pop knows/expects Hill's first plaoff experience to not be exactly very smooth, so at some point there's gotta be an alternative or two. Vaughn is a steady hand and everyone knows he could manage, but if we need more scoring then Manu or Mason would be more viable options.

2. With Manu out we need Mason to get more touches, especially if he starts hot, like he did against Phoenix last night. In high scoring games Mason has to get more touches for us to have a better chance.

In other words, I believe with the return of Manu, we'll see Hill back as the primary backup, while Mason's role/touches would reduce ( or take more from Finley's ). However, I fully expect Hill to struggle at some point in the playoffs, which is normal, and at that point this experiment with Mason as backup could be very helpful, especially if Pop prefers a backcourt of Mason and Manu for stretches, in which the shooter would handle the backup PG responsibilities, rather than the slasher.

I also don't think it's fair comparison between the likes of MMouse/Van Exel and Hill. Generally there have been two types who have come here as a backup PG in the last few years ( I exclude Anthony Carter ) - veterans at the wrong end of their careers - Porter, Kerr, Ward, Van Exel, Mighty Mouse, and younger/rookies - Speedy, Beno and Hill. With the exception of Beno, I don't think Pop's treatment has ruined anyone. And Beno is debateable, because he's not exactly setting the NBA on fire with his play, Kings want him out less than a year after giving him his contract, says it all. When it comes to the veteran group I think, if anything, Pop has trusted them too much, asking them to shoot more, take more responsibilities than they could at the stage of their careers.

With his younger PGs Pop likes to give them the rough treatment from time to time to see if he can trust them and how they would respond. Parker became an allstar, whereas if he had been drafted by another team, I believe there's a decent possibility he could have spent his career as a backup and never panning out. Parker's response to Pop's treatment was as big a difference to his development, as his talent, if not bigger.

Beno, on the other hand folded. But from what I've seen so far from Hill, I believe he's much more a Tony Parker personality, than Beno, so there is every reason to think he can make the grade. Last night was a big step in this direction because it showed that Hill was not complacent after being headed towards a DNP, it also showed that Pop would trust him to go out there in crunch time and put him on the opponent's most clutch player. Hill responded very well and even if there are setbacks along the way, he's shown he can be counted on.

Hill's mature and tough, he has two examples right in front of him about what his career path could be. I trust him to not fold under Pop's treatment and I'm sure Pop knows what he's doing. I don't think he's ruined Hill's confidence at all, especially after last night's game.

[spurster]

An alternative POV was that Hill hit the rookie wall, and Pop was waiting for him to get past it. I would guess Sunday's performance will get Hill more time.

[Agloco]

Good observations, but I think the thought could be extended to most reserves. I notice that Pop has a penchant for burying people on the bench at times for no obvious reasons. See Bowen this year...... I know full well that it's a byproduct of the fact that Pop like to tinker with the roster during the season, but it's almost like he forgets some people exist.

[SenorSpur]

Excellent thoughts!

It's something that I've been hinted at ever since this transition started. I know it's sacrilege to criticize Pop, but these points are dead on.

If Pop is insistent on getting more touches and minutes for Mason, something I believe is necessary too, he should start by cutting down on Finley's minutes. I noticed this in the Dallas game, where Finley's minutes were in the high 30's. Once Parker took a breather around the 4:00 mark of the 1st quarter, Pop siimply slid Mason over to backup PG, Finley re-entered the game and teamed up with Bowen at the forward spot, in a smaller lineup. When Hill finally did get into the game in the 2nd quarter, he was relegated to inbounding the ball the Mason, and running up court and setting up in the corners. Hardly an area where he can be effective.

Sure Hill isn't the shooter that Mason is, but Hill's ability to breakdown defenses, get into the paint, and pressure the ball defensively, are sorely needed when Parker is on the bench. Of course, the kid is going to make mistakes, but I see no point in castrating him by cutting down his minutes, taking away his ballhandling duties.

By the way, this change has been coming for some time now. When Manu was healthy, Pop was beginning to entrust primary ballhandling responsibilities to Ginobilii and not Hill, when they were paired together. It simply doesn't make any logical, basketball sense. Besides, Mason is more useful as a spot-up shooter, than the primary backup PG.

The Spurs have already tried to trade Hill once, so as much as Pop raved about his abilities when drafted, I just wonder how much Pop truly values this kid and if Hill will survive Pop's notorious, confidence-killing, mind games. To me, it's all an exercise in futility. I wish he'd simply go with the rookie and live with the results. The only was Hill is going to fully develop is with consistent playing time and learning from his mistakes.

[TDMVPDPOY]

just watch the game, how come his not allowing fkn hill handle the ball and setup plays.....

fkn mason :(

[1Parker1]

I actually loved what I've been seeing from Hill this entire season, even his bad games. I was racking my brain yesterday after seeing him hustle on boards and defense against a 2 time reigning MVP in the final minutes of a close game yesterday...why doesn't he get consistent minutes?

And the funny thing is, Michael Finley has all those flaws that you mentioned as a backup SG...he's not always aggressively offensively, his defense is suspect, etc. Yet he gets the most consistent playing time I've ever seen for a rotation player on Pop's bench in years.

[1Parker1]

Oh and call me crazy...but I think Hill would be great against the Lakers...especially defending Vuijiic and even Fisher when Parker is on the bench. Yet I have a feeling that he'll be riding the bench come playoff time should the Lakers and Spurs meet.

[MoSpur]

I called this last week when I started this thread about Mason not being a good backup PG. I hate when Pop goes to Mason as the backup PG. Hill has so much potential and natural gifts that it doesn't make any sense of him sitting on the bench. I completely agree with Timvp.

Roger doesn't have the skills to be a creator in the lane and doesn't have the court vision like a PG should have. He's great off the screen. That's it though. As mentioned earlier, Pop can do that for Mason w/out having Mason as the backup PG.

[stéphane]

Money is no TP.

Roger at the point is far from pop best idea this season. His shooting is way better than his slashing and his pnr use is so so at best. On top of that, Georges seems a lot more lost on offense when he's paired with Tony thus playing at the 2 spot.
Stop messing with the player's roles and confidence and bring Georges back in the rotation at the point, we really can use his athleticism, rebounding and defense in the playoffs.

[raspsa]

Hill is a different case IMO from the former Spurs players mentioned. Most important distinction is Hill has the makings of a lockdown defender which he demonstrated against Nash. This automatically earns bonus point with Pop. As far as scoring, Hill has shown he can do so, he just has to be selective in his shot attempts. One advantage he has is he has shown am ability to take the ball strong to the rim. He has also demonstrated 3-point range. He just has to learn to take what the defense gives him and not force anything. true his minutes will go down as Pop will give the vets more PT. But situations are sure to arise where Hills defense and other strengths will be required. Hopefully he doesn't get demoralized and demonstrates the professionalism that's expected of him.

[ManuTastic]

Excellent thoughts!

If Pop is insistent on getting more touches and minutes for Mason, something I believe is necessary too, he should start by cutting down on Finley's minutes.

Sure Hill isn't the shooter that Mason is, but Hill's ability to breakdown defenses, get into the paint, and pressure the ball defensively, are sorely needed when Parker is on the bench. Of course, the kid is going to make mistakes, but I see no point in castrating him by cutting down his minutes, taking away his ballhandling duties.

By the way, this change has been coming for some time now. When Manu was healthy, Pop was beginning to entrust primary ballhandling responsibilities to Ginobilii and not Hill, when they were paired together. It simply doesn't make any logical, basketball sense. Besides, Mason is more useful as a spot-up shooter, than the primary backup PG.

The Spurs have already tried to trade Hill once, so as much as Pop raved about his abilities when drafted, I just wonder how much Pop truly values this kid and if Hill will survive Pop's notorious, confidence-killing, mind games. To me, it's all an exercise in futility. I wish he'd simply go with the rookie and live with the results. The only was Hill is going to fully develop is with consistent playing time and learning from his mistakes.

The above accurately shows what Pop thinks of Hill: he's not a ballhandler. I haven't seen too much this season to think that's wrong. Has anyone else? I would fully agree with giving Hill more of Finley's minutes, and letting Mason/Manu be the backup points. Hill has lots of nice skills, esp on defense, but I don't see him as a PG that much.
:flag:

[m33p0]

Pop has a tendency to just suddenly out of the blue stick a bench player into a game for long stretches.

i'm calling it now. Hill will play significant minutes against the fakers. maybe even finish that game.

[MoSpur]

^
Mason has better handles? I seriously doubt that. Manu does, but not Mason. Mason can bring the ball up when there isn't that much pressure, but the guy cannot handle the rock that much better than Hill.

[coyotes_geek]

I understand wanting to give Mason the ball more often. I agree that he needs more touches than he's gotten in the previous six weeks. But that is doable with him at the shooting guard position. There's no reason to play him at point to get him touches. Just let Mason run pick-and-rolls in the half court set ... especially since that's what he ends up doing when he plays point.

With Mason at point, Pop is setting it up so that Hill will be out of the rotation once Ginobili returns. I just don't agree with that. Hill brings too much to the table. Sure he has some warts but an athlete who can rebound, concentrate on defense and play unselfish basketball should fit perfectly into the system of Spurs Basketball.

Just a theory here, but perhaps Pop is giving PG minutes to Mason to see if he can handle the PG duties in the playoffs, not out of a mis-trust of Hill, but as a test to Mason. We know Pop likes 3 point guards on the active roster, especially in playoff games. And Pop's definition of a playoff capable point guard is more than just being able to dribble the ball up the court. If Pop feels that a Parker/Hill/Mason trio is good enough then that allows him to keep Vaughn inactive.

Then again, you could be right that Pop is working on phasing Hill out of the rotation, but then if that's his plan why let Hill play the entire 4th quarter with the game on the line? Just seems a bit contradictory to me.

[m33p0]

Just a theory here, but perhaps Pop is giving PG minutes to Mason to see if he can handle the PG duties in the playoffs. We know Pop likes 3 point guards on the active roster, especially in playoff games. And Pop's definition of a playoff capable point guard is more than just being able to dribble the ball up the court. If Pop feels that a Parker/Hill/Mason trio is good enough then that allows him to keep Vaughn inactive.

Then again, you could be right that Pop is working on phasing Hill out of the rotation, but then if that's his plan why let Hill play the entire 4th quarter with the game on the line? Just seems a bit contradictory to me.
i've seen enough of it.

[urunobili]

I agree with timvp's rant and his well thought analysis... however... i still won't give up to the idea/thought that Hill will play a lot during the playoffs and may end up being key due to his defensive capabilities (someone has to stop Farmar and Vujabitch)... it's still a little too early to see how things will develop... Mason has had some childish mistakes running the point and has shoot some bad shots (long threes) when running it... so i think we should wait and see before throwing up the towel...

[BestPFInTheGame21]

:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:

Ill settle for Pops style of coaching.
Good points though....
Im sure they wouldnt have been so stingy in giving up Hill in a trade if they didnt have future plans for him though...

[Brazil]

I couldn't agree more timvp. Mase as a back up PG is at best a waste of time and a waste of Hill talent.

This team doesn't need Mason running the point. Besides he has no skills for that. On POs mode when TP is on the bench, if Pop doesn't trust Hill, He'll give the point to Manu, so why this experiment ? to test Hill and take the risk to kill his confidence ? Be ready in case Manu can't go back ? I don't want to think about this last option.

For the recurrent issues Pop / PGs I'm not such a good bb expert to have an accurate opinion. What I know is TP became what he is today thanks to Pop tough coaching but the same ingredients don't give always the same result. He cannot manage Hill on a same way he did for TP and Mason at the point is not a good idea.

[ALAMO-DEFENSE]

Hill can defend any PG in the league, better than Mason.

[xtremesteven33]

Having Mason as a backup PG is for more offense and nothing more.

Hill is a liability on the offensive end. Mason can score and create.

Hill will be back as a back up once Manu comes back.

[TheProfessor]

From what I've seen of Hill, I think he's stronger mentally that some are giving him credit for. Just see how he stepped in yesterday. He'll do what he can with the minutes given and he won't complain or shut down mentally like a certain purse-wearing Euro, even if that means spot defensive duties for the time being.

[nkdlunch]

yes, it's Pop's fault we've had shit for backup PGs over the years :rolleyes

[MI21]

Nice thoughts, timvp. I agree that lately Pop has been unfairly harsh on Hill.

In my mind, the reason Pop has limited Hill's recent minutes is because of his passive offensive play. It's a weird thing, but Hill seemed more confident in himself during the first 30 games of the season than the last 30. I have absolutely no idea why because as we know, Pop loves his aggressive PG's, so he wouldn't have told Hill to turn it down a notch. But lately Hill doesn't even look to shoot, drive or even create. It's very frustrating to watch especially considering we have seen him dominate patches of games offensively.

Not enough can be said of his defense and rebounding though. The thing with his rebounding is that it isn't just chasing down long rebounds or getting cheapies, he drags down big rebounds amongst the trees. It makes a huge difference against the athletic teams and would certainly help against LA.

His man to man defense is exceptional and reminds me of a young Lindsay Hunter. It isn't an overly physical type of defense so he doesn't face the problem of no respect from the referees and when he does get beat his wingspan helps him to recover and contest. His defense against Allen Iverson and Steve Nash comes to mind and help display his defensive versatility against 2 very different players.

Heading into the stretch run I hope to see Hill back to getting all the minutes backing up Parker and some minutes in the backcourt with Parker against teams that occasionally run small backcourts (Kidd/Terry, Nash/Barbosa, Fisher/Vujacic, Brooks/Wafer etc). I don't even mind him getting some extended minutes if Parker is stinking it up, particularly when Manu is back and Parker's ability to carry the scoring load isn't as neccessary. I actually like Mason as a backup PG in certain situations, but as a rule, Hill's defense and rebounding can really add to the Spurs rotation, especially when the Big 3 are all firing.

[Marcus Bryant]

This is a good theory. It certainly explains a lot of what we've seen over the years.

It is telling that experienced points who have come to SA flame out quickly.

One would think protecting the rock, defense and initiating the offense would be Pop's top 3 requirements. I agree that Pop doesn't know what he wants. If anything, it seems like a position that gets lost in the grander scheme. Perhaps it's because he expects all perimeter players to play a certain way offensively, yet that is at odds with the basic requirements of the position. It makes a bit of sense that he would try out Mason there, as I think offensively that is what Pop has in mind for his backup point. The question will be can he provide the defense that Pop expects at that position?

[MI21]

Also, I agree on the view that Pop's tactics and treatment of backup PG's is a bit harsh. Like timvp said, they are backups for a reason. Let them be what they are and don't try to turn them into something they are not. The short leash towards the backups needs to stop, in the regular season at least. Hill's passive offensive play might be annoying, but he does make up for it with defense and rebounding.

[SenorSpur]

Wow, have none of you played sports at a high level? Its called TOUGH LOVE. He see's ALOT of ability and potential in Hill and is giving him the tough, hard way. He WANTS Hill to succeed, but doesn't want to just hand it to him, like Eric Gordon or OJ Mayo. If he didn't care for Hill and think he had the skills, he would never make fun of him in the huddle, questions his toughness, put him in crunch time, toy around with his mind by playing him some games and not playing him some others. Its called seeing if he has it to become great. If he can't withstand Pops tests and coaching, he will not make it in the NBA as a good-great player. The players who have withstood Pops tough love treatment have succeeded, Parker is a prime example. Players who have wilted down and became huge pussies are like Beno. Pops knows what he got in Hill, evident of the 17 ppg when Parker was out. Thats why he is in the rotation as a rookie. Pops wants Hill to become great, and thus is giving him this tough love treatment.

You must be forgetting that Tony Parker was inserted as a starter by the 6th game of his rookie year. Yet, he still got overwhelming doses of the "tough love" treatment. At times, Parker was forced to relinquish minutes and duties to Speedy Claxton, Terry Porter or whoever, but he was never benched or DNPed. The point is, the tough love treatment can be administered without having to totally strip away his PG responsibilities in the process.

As a former college shooting guard, let's not forget that Hill is still making the conversion to PG. Therefore, he's still learning the position and needs consistent practice reps and in-game minutes to expedite his conversion. Are we also forgetting that Hill ran the team beautifully in Parker's absence? We know he's more than capable. IMO, he's earned the right not to be DNPed or having his responsibiilities stripped.

On another note, Pop admitted that he bungled handling Beno. Now, Beno WAS as soft as tissue paper. so he wilted in Pop's treatment of hiim. I don't know how Pop could've handled him better. I just know that Pop took some of the blame for his failure. Therefore as great of a coach as Pop is, let's not act as though he's infalliable in his approach toward developing players in his system. He's made some mistakes and has, at times, overvalued the skills of others, as Timvp has pointed out.

I agree that Pop wants to curtail the sense of entitlement that most young players come in with and the "tough love treatement" is the way to go. Yet, there is a difference between giving out tough love versus stunting a players development.

[LockBeard]

Hill is a future 1st team defense. Pop better not fuck this up. Hill is the future.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

So how do you explain Jacque Vaughn? Pop has loved Vaughn since day one.

I'm worried too about the Pop Effect crushing George Hill. BUT, I've seen Pop play him at the 2 alongside Mace and Tony. I don't know if it's 'cause Pop already figured George can't play the 1 the way he wants him to or if he wants to give George minutes anywhere he can.

[mathbzh]

I agree Pop is very harsh on PG.
But on the other hand he is a coach who is playing for rings, who is coaching one of the top players ever...
I think he don't care too much about developing players. He just wants to win.
Either you can support his treatment and be ready for the playoffs, either you can't and you get out of the rotation.

Parker looks like a really tough guy. But his first playoffs runs were not easy.
Talented or not, if you are soft during the playoffs, you will be destroyed by some hard nosed veteran.

I can't say I like what he is doing to Hill. But I have learned to trust Pop decisions :lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:

[Spursfan092120]

Is it possible we're all (including myself) looking into this way too much? I had a thought pop into my head that makes a lot of sense. Maybe they're letting Mason run some point right now because Pop has no intention of bringing JV onto the playoff roster, and he's not comfortable with ONLY having Hill as our PG if something happens (God forbid) to Tony. So if Mason can run some point, and something happens to Tony, he won't have only Hill running the point. We're looking too deep into this, I think.

[DarrinS]

Here's another thought: Maybe Pop is just wanting to narrow down the rotation. Perhaps Hill's decreasing minutes is more Mason being great than Hill doing anything wrong.



Mason is great, but not great at running the point, IMHO. Mason is not incredibly quick and he doesn't finish at the rim very well (he got blocked a few times by that backup Sun's center with the ponytail).

Also, Hill is a better defender than Mason, but Mason did have a couple of good defensive stints against the Suns.


Great post by Timvp, btw.

[Bruno]

Disagree.

Spurs have struggled at the backup PG spot for years but you try to explain that by a wild theory (Pop being a good coach except for backup PG spot :downspin: ) while in fact the explanation is as simple as it can be.

The last time Spurs had a good backup PG was in 03 with Speedy. Since that, Spurs never spend more than $1.5M per year on a backup PG. The less money you spend, the harder it is to find a good player. Spurs never made the investment to get a good backup PG. You can regret it but when you had a limited amount of money, you had to make choices.


About Hill :

First, Hill struggles a lot with his jumpshot. A unproven perimeter player with that flaw is a huge question mark for the playoffs. Hill is 21/85 (24.7%) on 18-24 ft shoot this season. He is 20/57 (35.1%) on 3 points shot. It's better but he hit these shot mainly early in the season. In January/February, he has had a 20 games stretch where he didn't hit a single 3 point shot.

Second, Pop started to go away of Hill as backup PG with Manu injured. Manu changes a lot of things for what the backup PG has to do and it's possible that Hill get back his previous spot int he rotation when Manu will be back.

[Pauleta14]

Don't forget that as nice as Pop can be, his main goal is winning, not helping young players to improve by giving them playing time the way a lottery team 'd do!
It is still a business and you have to accept your role or prove your coach wrong (that's what did TP by the way...)
Pop is working the hard way to see your limits and who you react in many different situations...
He'll use what he needs in Hill and not the contrary even though it's not in Hill's interest...
But to be "optimistic", George seems to be a smart guy, he'll accept whatever his role is and will keep improve his game (once again as TP did!)

[Slomo]

Wow, have none of you played sports at a high level? Its called TOUGH LOVE. He see's ALOT of ability and potential in Hill and is giving him the tough, hard way. He WANTS Hill to succeed, but doesn't want to just hand it to him, like Eric Gordon or OJ Mayo. If he didn't care for Hill and think he had the skills, he would never make fun of him in the huddle, questions his toughness, put him in crunch time, toy around with his mind by playing him some games and not playing him some others. Its called seeing if he has it to become great. If he can't withstand Pops tests and coaching, he will not make it in the NBA as a good-great player. The players who have withstood Pops tough love treatment have succeeded, Parker is a prime example. Players who have wilted down and became huge pussies are like Beno. Pops knows what he got in Hill, evident of the 17 ppg when Parker was out. Thats why he is in the rotation as a rookie. Pops wants Hill to become great, and thus is giving him this tough love treatment.

While I agree with this sort of philosophy in general and with your post in particular, it must be said that this method is pretty much an all or nothing approach.

It's definitely what made TP great (beside his talent and ego) but while it would be nice to have 2 TPs, what we really need is a solid backup PG, so maybe the method should be somewhat adapted (toned down) to the role of the player.

OTOH if TP should go down with an injury (God forbid) it probably is a good idea to have somebody tough enough to replace him...

[urunobili]

Second, Pop started to go away of Hill as backup PG with Manu injured. Manu changes a lot of things for what the backup PG has to do and it's possible that Hill get back his previous spot int he rotation when Manu will be back.

Free Money for y'all... :tu

[rascal]

I said that Hill's confidence and development will be stunted if he didn't get the playing time.

Manu should be traded for a star big and Hill Mason and Parker could cover the guard positions with big minutes.

[silverblackfan]

I think that Pop is just working his rotations at guard to see what he has. Mason as a PG has gotten a bit better at handling the rock and even attacking the basket. Not good, but better than the first times doing this. It give Pop another option over JV's lack of offense if necessary in the playoffs
As for killing Hill's confidence, good luck with that... He strikes me as pretty mentally tough and ready to perform what every match up role Pop asks of him. Performing well in the 4th qtr by smothering Nash on defense was a good example.
Granted, both Hill and Mason could benefit from handling the ball more, but there is only so much time available.
Bottom line: Pop is still seeing what options/combinations he can use in the playoffs.
I like the available options.

[objective]

I would agree that it's a mistake to bench Hill so much. Defense alone should get him court time.

But I disagree with Ward, Van Exel and Stoudamire. Those guys were all completely finished, especially the first two. Maybe the Spurs could have won in 06 without Van Exel getting destroyed and shooting horribly.

[Marcus Bryant]

So how do you explain Jacque Vaughn? Pop has loved Vaughn since day one.

I'm worried too about the Pop Effect crushing George Hill. BUT, I've seen Pop play him at the 2 alongside Mace and Tony. I don't know if it's 'cause Pop already figured George can't play the 1 the way he wants him to or if he wants to give George minutes anywhere he can.


Vaughn makes sense for Pop's system as a point guard who can:

1. Protect the rock when advancing it into the half-court.
2. Initiate the offense in the half-court.
3. Defend the point guard position.

That's why Pop would have faith in a Jacque Vaughn come playoff time over more offensively gifted points.

The thing is, Pop recognizes Vaughn's offensive limitations. And I think that this is a theme this years for the team overall. Bruce's out of the starting lineup. The Spurs were seriously contemplating trading for Vince Carter. No, Ghost Writer and SequSpur haven't taken over the front office.

Pop is simply transitioning the Spurs into a higher scoring team and betting that he can get the new members of the rotation to execute passably on defense while improving markedly on the offensive side. I think the next shoe to drop in this transition is to improve the interior defense (meaning they'll make another run at Camby this summer). Maybe this has been brought on by the fact that Bruce is nearing the end of his career or, as has been hinted by the FO in the press, they see the league trending this way and are simply changing with the times.

[TDMVPDPOY]

give pop a stud like rose, and he probably stunt his growth also....

[Dex]

:wow

If timvp is going Marcus Bryant, something must be seriously effed.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

give pop a stud like rose, and he probably stunt his growth also....

Yea like he did with this Tony Parker character right? :(

[rascal]

I would agree that it's a mistake to bench Hill so much. Defense alone should get him court time.

But I disagree with Ward, Van Exel and Stoudamire. Those guys were all completely finished, especially the first two. Maybe the Spurs could have won in 06 without Van Exel getting destroyed and shooting horribly.

All three of those guys were finished. They were soon out of the league and never did much else after the spurs.

[xtremesteven33]

Bowen should still be in the starting lineup. He and Tim set the defensive tone for the whole game and the entire bench.

I would not be confident in this current lineup in the playoffs. NO WAY

[Marcus Bryant]

There's a 4th reason why Pop has liked Vaughn:

4. Knows his role in the Spurs' offensive and defensive systems and can execute (well, other than the 20 foot J) reliably.

But just like Pop once made Bruce an integral part of the Spurs' defense, times have changed.

[TDMVPDPOY]

pop likes vaughn cause he reminds him of avery johnson who was also limited....

[xtremesteven33]

Vaughn will not win you a game nor lose you a game.


Hes just there.

[Marcus Bryant]

Vaughn will not win you a game nor lose you a game.


Hes just there.

That's why he was there.

[Muser]

Good points, but I have to disagree with some.

This is the NBA, and the spurs are a title contender so as people have stated tough love will be in effect. George Hill is only a Rookie after all, and yes he can play good ball but you can't put too much on him (See Rodney Stuckey at the Pistons, this is his second season but since he had injuries last season this can be seen as his first. The Pistons put him straight into the starting lineup, and after about 2 months he's not producing to the standards the team wanted.)

But I will agree that Hill should be taking parkers place when he's not on the floor, not Mason.

[Parker2112]

Nobody (including Timvp) has addressed the fact that Hill hit the rookie wall several weeks back. His production took a severe hit, and I think Pop may be trying to deal with that drop off while also trying to get Hill fresh (or refreshed) for the playoffs.

In my mind, THIS is the major cause for Mason coming in to back Parker, as well as preparing him for point guard duty in the playoffs, not some half-baked theory about Pop's ineptitude with backup point guards.

The thing Timvp doesn't even mention is that all the point guards he mentions (Kerr, Stoudamire, Daniels, Beno) were defensively liabilities. It's no wonder they couldn't stay on the court. As for Daniels, he may not be a defensively liabilty now, but everytime he hit the court while playing in a spurs uniform he had points/highlight dunks in mind.

Fail on the analysis.

[K-State Spur]

Basically, the only two point guards to survive Pop's point guard treatment over the years have been AJ and Parker... Every other point guard was murdered by Pop.

Kerr came in as a high profile reserve point guard fresh off of three championships and he was utterly useless in his first stint under Pop. Antonio Daniels wilted under Pop before going on to become one of the best backup point guards of the last decade. Speedy Claxton is remembered for his Game 6 against the Nets performance but he had many downs as ups in his Spurs career.

Terry Porter came to the Spurs as a premier backup point guard and instantly turned into a liability. Charlie Ward, Nick Van Exel and Damon Stoudamire came to the Spurs playing decent basketball but Pop swiftly ended their careers. Last year with Stoudamire was amazing. After playing well and helping out the first few games, Pop told Stoudamire to stop passing so much and start shooting more. The result? Pop benched Stoudamire for becoming a chucker.

That's pretty unfair.

Kerr & Porter - while still having something left in the tank - were well past their primes. Van Exel & Stoudamire were washed up regardless. Stoudamire, despite receiving regular minutes in Memphis, had been bad for over 2 years before Pop got a hold of him.

Claxton has never been consistent before or since...but that still falls on Pop?

Really, the only good examples are Daniels & Beno.

It should be noted that Daniels was viewed as a bit of a disappointment before he even got to San Antonio. We got him for 50 cents on the dollar considering that he had been a lottery pick the year before. But he got steady minutes for the most part (in different roles admittedly) over his time here. But he's always been up and down save for a couple of years in Seattle & one in DC that coincided with what should be his prime.

And I still believe that Beno is a guy who can fool you with numbers on a bad team, but will never be a rotation guy on a good team.

It remains to be seen what becomes of Hill.

[SequSpur]

This is a good topic. I was thinking the same thing last night about hill's agressiveness on offense or lack there of relating to Pop.

Early in the season, when Parker went out, Hill did a stellar job on both ends and had balance.

There is absolutely no fucking reason why hill couldn't score on Nash and most point guards every time down the floor. He has size, athleticism, can shoot the 3 and slam on anyone....

I am with ya, good stuff timvp. Pop's a turd.

[Marcus Bryant]

pop likes vaughn cause he reminds him of avery johnson who was also limited....


And AJ knew his role and executed it.

Pop expects all players to do so. It hasn't just been veteran point guards who've found their way out of SA quickly because they couldn't learn their role. Mercer and Mohammed come to mind right off the top, in addition to the veteran points mentioned above.

This is why Pop sticks with players like Finley. He knows his role and Pop can count on him executing it. To Pop that is paramount.

The Spurs let AD go even though he was best buds or whatever with Duncan.

[SequSpur]

I think Hill shoots just fine from the 3. I recall 10 games or so ago against the Celtics that he threw up one that looked like butter on the move and it dropped the bottom of the net.

Mason is great, but he tends to rush a little during the middle of a game when he should reset to Tim and wait for another kick out.

If Mason would go pick up Jaren Jackson's Guide to Closing Down the Forum VHS tape at Walmart for $4.99, he would reach another level.

[Marcus Bryant]

Pop never really liked Barry for this reason as well. He tolerated him because, yes, his skills fit with the motion O, but his general tendency towards pussiness did not and of course he was not a defensive stalwart.

This is why it's not hard to see Gooden coming in, putting up some big stats and then Pop putting him on the bench as the postseason arrives. There will likely be a 'Free Gooden' movement in this forum. The only thing that may prevent that is that a Gooden with flawed execution may be a more attractive option to a stuck in mud Oberto with perfect execution.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

One thing Hill does have going for him is his defense and rebounding is far superior to that of Van Excel, Stoudamire, Udrih, Vaughn, and Claxton.

That alone makes it so he'll never be completely out of the rotation. If Popovich doesn't want him, we'll take him in Phoenix :lol

[tmtcsc]

Hey Timvp,

Solid post but I couldn't disagree with you more. Antonio Daniels moved on to other teams but he's really no better than he was here. He had plenty of chances to take over this team but failed miserably.

2 of his glaring weakness were:

1. Failure to drive and kick out to shooters. If he decides to drive to the basket, he goes for the shot and that's it. Teams knew that and he never adjusted.

2. Failure to take the ball to the rim at all. That was one of the things that used to drive Pop crazy. AD would constantly take a few dribbles towards the basket (either in a half court set or on a break) and then he would stop and back it out. He still does that to this day.

I hope that makes sense. He would either take it all the way to the rim for a dunk or layup or he would take about 4 dribbles in (not close enough to do anything at the rim) and then back it out.

That is what inevtiably cost him his starting job with the Spurs. How long did it take, 7 games ? In any case, Tony at 19 had a better ability to drive to the hoop and then kick the ball out to the perimeter and the Spurs decided to live with his youth and inexperience over Daniels.

As for Claxton, I think Pop loved the guy. He just couldn't stay healthy and that's been his identity since he's been in the league.

I think our most talented backup was Beno. He has all the skills to be a very good NBA player but his toughness and lack of focus were a real problem here. Now that really must have driven Pop nuts. He loves consistency and Beno was very up and down and seemed to be cowarded if Pop got on him. Pop doesn't want guys to hang their heads when he yells at them, he wants them to respond and listen. If you understand that, you'll be fine.


As for Mason getting Hill's minutes, I understand what Pop's trying to do. He wants a rotation of his best 8 or 9 players ready to go. I love Hill's D and he's got a lot of confidence in his shot but nothing changes the fact that he is a rookie. He is going to face a whole different level of competition when the playoffs start and we aren't really sure of how he'll respond. I think Pop wants steady, experienced guys on the floor for as long as possible. Now is Mason the guy to handle that for us ? He hasn't floored me so far. I think he's ok at handling the ball but nowhere near how good Hill WILL BE in the future. In fact, Mason has been sloppy as of late and has turned the ball over quite a bit. Especially against Dallas.

I have a feeling Hill will see some minutes at the off guard position in the playoffs but not that much floor time as the point.

[vander]

wow :wow timvp is usually so positive and upbeat

all I can say is that Hill's defense yesterday gave me warm fuzzies. Just in time, as Bowen is on the way out, we get this Hill, who could be even better, who deserves to be on the court for his defense alone.
I especially like Hill on the court with TP, guarding the better of the opposing guards, not that TP can't, it's just not the ideal usage of his energy. TP is a scorer, and doesn't need to be on the court with other scorers, or anymore than 2 shooters since he only dishes to the corners. TP needs to be on the court with a defensive specialist, this opens up many aspects of TP's game: TP can take more chances on the offensive end if the D is playing better, more fast breaks, he'll have fresher legs, and I'm sure there's more.

maybe Hill can be a good backup point guard too, but for now, I'd rather him be a defensive stopper and Manu be the backup PG. Manu has the second most PG skills on the team, and I'd rather see TP and Manu on the court separately as much as possible since their skills overlap so much. oh and Hill would play well with Manu too, guarding the PGs on the other end since Manu can play point well, but probably can't defend them to well.


edit: of course there's the possibility Nash just isn't that tough an assignment anymore and made Hill look good

[tmtcsc]

Bowen should still be in the starting lineup. He and Tim set the defensive tone for the whole game and the entire bench.

I would not be confident in this current lineup in the playoffs. NO WAY

I think Bowen's minutes are going to increase in the playoffs. Probably in place of Finley.

[xtremesteven33]

I think Bowen's minutes are going to increase in the playoffs. Probably in place of Finley.


I hope so. Finley is a catch and shoot player. Bowen is a GREAT defensive player and also a catch and shoot player.

If Bowen isnt in the starting lineup soon......Im not gonna feel good about our chances

[ElNono]

Vaughn defense is severely overrated. The guy plays hard, and will put his hand up on every shot, and while that is commendable, he has never locked down anybody. He's not a Bruce Bowen type of lockdown defender.
While Vaughn has the vet smarts going for him, Hill has the advantage of larger wingspan and being much more athletic. I still don't understand why Vaughn didn't just call it quits before the trade deadline, and joined the team back in as an assistant coach, and opened up a roster spot to boot.

[hater]

Vaughn will not win you a game nor lose you a game.

he's just there


isn't that the backup PG's main goal???

[ElNono]

I said that Hill's confidence and development will be stunted if he didn't get the playing time.

Manu should be traded for a star big and Hill Mason and Parker could cover the guard positions with big minutes.

What star big, and why would the other team do it?

[peewee's lovechild]

Tim, I hope you're wrong.

We need Hill.

[tp2021]

isn't that the backup PG's main goal???

Even better when he's the backup's backup.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I hope so. Finley is a catch and shoot player. Bowen is a GREAT defensive player and also a catch and shoot player.

If Bowen isnt in the starting lineup soon......Im not gonna feel good about our chances

If I had to guess, Bowen might not be moved to the starting lineup at all, but his minutes will increase should they meet LA in the WCF.

Like it or not, Bowen isn't capable of guarding Kobe effectively for 40 MPG like he could in 2003, you're probably getting effective defense on Kobe from him for 25-30 minutes on a good day.

Although not the same situation, this is similar to the finals last year when Pierce was clearly the best Kobe defender on Boston, but could only guard Kobe for so long before losing too much energy. Because of this, they put Ray Allen on Kobe for most of the 1st quarter knowing Kobe would go off but knowing his offense would peak early on and Pierce could shut him down in the 2nd half.

In he WCF last year, SA blew a big lead in game 1 because Kobe got better as the game went on. LA blew game 2 open because Kobe got hot in the 2nd half. My guess is Pop noticed this and that's why Bowen won't be defending Kobe early on.

[ss1986v2]

just want to reinforce a couple things already stated. i do think pop is still in tinker mode as far as rotation is concerned. its a combination of too much missed time by the big three, along with bonner and mason stepping into roles bigger than pop had probably envisioned going into the season.

along with that though, is that fact that hill is still a rookie, and plays like one at times. hes not going to get calls that other players would get (getting popped for touch fouls on the defensive end due to his aggressive nature being the most notable). his playmaking has been impressive to me considering where he was last year at UIPUI, but he still (whether from being flustered by pressure or wanting to impress) puts too much zip on what should be simple passes, leading to fumbled balls and turnovers. hes shooting better than i thought he would, but hes still streaky, and i still question his range (along with his ability to finish at the rim).

going into the year, i was pretty sure that unless hill was tearing it up, he probably wasnt going to be part of the end game and playoff rotation anyway. best case going into the the year was what, 15 minutes per, with even less in the playoffs? hes right on pace for that now. with mason being able to handle spot minutes at pg (something more people should have seen going into the year) and manu still probably being out crunch time playmaker, this isnt unexpected. we wouldnt even be having this discussion if parker hadnt gone down, and hill stepped up the way he did.

one thing that has surprised me is the spurs 3 guard line up (parker, hill, mason) when facing smaller teams. i think that has actually worked out pretty well, and i might like to see more of it in the future. but right now, i dont have issue with seeing a reduced role for hill.

[Trimble87]

Timvp, I generally share your opinions and takes, but I disagree on this one. At the least, it's too early to say that.

IMO Pop is still in an experimenting mode and unlike in previous seasons I don't think he's already got a set in stone view for the playoff rotation. This could be a good or a bad thing, I can't really say,but we're seeing a lot of unorthodox decision making from Pop right now.

Pop has stated several times in interviews that he is still feeling out the rotation and experimenting with different looks. Its very late in the season for us to be trying out new lineups, but Pop hasnt found what hes looking for yet. I wouldnt get too worried unless this trend continues.

Hills play has been down recently, and that combined with Pop tinkering with the rotations has caused his minutes to drop. However when Hill has been in the games he's looked sharp and ready to play.

Heres to Hill being the backup pg for the foreseeable future :downspin:

[MarHill]

And AJ knew his role and executed it.

Pop expects all players to do so. It hasn't just been veteran point guards who've found their way out of SA quickly because they couldn't learn their role. Mercer and Mohammed come to mind right off the top, in addition to the veteran points mentioned above.

This is why Pop sticks with players like Finley. He knows his role and Pop can count on him executing it. To Pop that is paramount.

The Spurs let AD go even though he was best buds or whatever with Duncan.

I would agree with that, Marcus!

I had to think about Timvp's post for a few minutes before I decide to respond.

However, he may have a point and like all people we have blind spots. And the back-up PG may be a blind spot for Pop.

Moreover, I think it's too early to tell about Hill. He probably has hit the rookie wall and it's very difficult on the NBA level to play PG when you have been a SG in college.

The Timberwolves tried that with Foye and it didn't work and McHale had the good sense to move Foye back to SG and he has played much better.

Plus, Hill did play well early in the season when TP was out. Still, I think Hill will be on the floor during the playoffs because of his defense.

I do think he needs to continue to work is his agressiveness and finishing at the rim. Those things along with his defense will keep him in the Spurs' rotation for awhile.

A good topic.....there are several answers that could be posted from it.

:flag:

[rogcl1]

First of all let me say that I do not believe that Pop does no wrong, but he is at this point playing to win a championship. That eliminates many players right off the bat. There is a certain amount of mental toughness required to play anything close to winning or championsip ball. Yes ,this I believe can be deveolped and built on to a degree but basically if one is not able to withstand the heat and do what is expected of them and unable to compete and earn minutes in a championship environment then I believe you have what would be Beno being unable to get the ball past halfcourt against the Piston's trap. Pop was not guarding Beno the Pistons were. Pop I believe prepares his players to be successful in competitive situations. Yes, some can't hack it. Point guard is a tough position, backup point guard harder yet.

Kerr? I did not follow Kerr all that much before the Bulls but I believe he flourished there as an off the ball shooter with the ball in Jordan's or Pippen's hands. It was painful to watch him bring the ball up the court here but again I thought his success here was as an off the ball shooter.No defense either.

Ward? Washed up upon arrival.

Speedy Claxton probably was the best when healthy but he also got hot at good moments. But remember after his limited succes here he chose to cash in for $ which you can't fault him. How did all that work out for im other than the $?

Stoudamire and Van Excel washed up before arrival.Also no defense. I think both brought the hope of giving a different look to spread the floor and give defenses a different look than the collapse on Parker scheme that will be seen from the Lakers.I do agree Stoudamire appeared to be distributing and fitting in but I think he was wanted for more outside shooting to spread the floor. JV can distribute but he also plays better D than both.. Both Van Excel and Stoudamire showed they no longer had the scoring threat that was desired.

As for Hill I believe Pop actually likes him. I think Hill's lack of aggressiveness probably has cost him some time . I believe Pop wants to have seen all his options before the playoffs start. Hill certainly earned some trust in certain situations with his play Sunday.I actually think Pop is being careful with Hill and trying to find situations where he will be successful. Hey, he is a rookie on a team playing for a championship.

I am not sure how the Mason at point experiment will work out but now is the time to find out. He offers the potential floor spreader at the point that Stoudamire and Van Excel failed to provide.This could be huge if Gooden and Duncan mesh well together. If he is able to handle the job it can help keep pressure off a promising rookie and allow Hill to do what he did Sunday in given situations .It also could put pressure on the defenses to change their focus from the collapse on Tony and a penetrating Hill scheme.(If he is even being aggressive). A slashing Hill basically keeps the defense in the same mode and he has not yet in my view shown the willingness to keep the defense honest with his shooting.I trust Pop on this .
PS- I think Finley has a role but I also want to throw my worn out canvas converse at him on the TV sometimes.

Anyway, good topic, tough position to play and to manage.I always enjoy reading your posts TIMVP but I think if you will exhale ,this situation will take care of itself. I think Hill is here to stay .

[kace]

Pop is doing what he has often done with rookies, nothing against backup PG or against Hill. how many decent rookie were put on the bench on their first year with the spurs ? nothing new here from Pop.

Hill is great and i think and hope he will be usefull for us. but :

1. Pop usually doesn't trust easily rookies
2. Hill's offense is still raw and poor (especially his drive to the rim)
3. his great defensive skills doesn't always prevent him for being destroyed on defense. he has to learn even in this area where he seems so promising.


There is probably a reasonable position between Pop's lack of trust in him because he's a rookie and Timvp seeing him as a difference maker against LA in this PO.

[MoSpur]

Should the Spurs hire Avery Johnson as a special assistant to work with Hill? Timvp is stating that maybe Pop isn't the best at coaching backup PGs or letting them develop. So why not bring someone in to help with this who use to play the position? I know AJ can be hard and it might be risky, but its just a thought.

[xtremesteven33]

If I had to guess, Bowen might not be moved to the starting lineup at all, but his minutes will increase should they meet LA in the WCF.

Like it or not, Bowen isn't capable of guarding Kobe effectively for 40 MPG like he could in 2003, you're probably getting effective defense on Kobe from him for 25-30 minutes on a good day.

Although not the same situation, this is similar to the finals last year when Pierce was clearly the best Kobe defender on Boston, but could only guard Kobe for so long before losing too much energy. Because of this, they put Ray Allen on Kobe for most of the 1st quarter knowing Kobe would go off but knowing his offense would peak early on and Pierce could shut him down in the 2nd half.

In he WCF last year, SA blew a big lead in game 1 because Kobe got better as the game went on. LA blew game 2 open because Kobe got hot in the 2nd half. My guess is Pop noticed this and that's why Bowen won't be defending Kobe early on.


Bowen may have lost a step defensively but he is still a pest and uses his "tricks" to get opponents off their game. Kobe even says that Bowen is the best defensive player he has to go up against.

With that said, Bowen is still a very vital part of this team. His defensive IQ is off the charts and not only creates havoc for the one player hes guarding but his ball deflections and rotations are what sets the tone for this team.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Bowen may have lost a step defensively but he is still a pest and uses his "tricks" to get opponents off their game. Kobe even says that Bowen is the best defensive player he has to go up against.

With that said, Bowen is still a very vital part of this team. His defensive IQ is off the charts and not only creates havoc for the one player hes guarding but his ball deflections and rotations are what sets the tone for this team.

I agree, which is why the Spurs will probably use him on Kobe more in the 2nd half because Kobe is most dangerous in the 4th quarter.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

I like Hill he is a good player already and should improve and he has very good length and athletic ability. But he is not a real point guard either. And he is just a rookie.

[rogcl1]

Should the Spurs hire Avery Johnson as a special assistant to work with Hill? Timvp is stating that maybe Pop isn't the best at coaching backup PGs or letting them develop. So why not bring someone in to help with this who use to play the position? I know AJ can be hard and it might be risky, but its just a thought.

At least two reasons why this will not happen.
1. Avery currently is happy collecting Cuban's money for not coaching.
2.I believe Pop actually is better at dealing with his players than AJ.

[urunobili]

I'd rather see TP and Manu on the court separately as much as possible since their skills overlap so much.

EPIC Fail

They won 3 rings playing together like 30 minutes and now they overlap?

Just let your Manu hate/TP homerism go and maybe you'll understand the Spurs system better...

[Spurminator]

Should the Spurs hire Avery Johnson as a special assistant to work with Hill? Timvp is stating that maybe Pop isn't the best at coaching backup PGs or letting them develop. So why not bring someone in to help with this who use to play the position? I know AJ can be hard and it might be risky, but its just a thought.


While it's a small sample, Avery doesn't exactly have the best track record of getting the best out of PG's either...

http://www.hoopsvibe.com/IMG/devin_harris-arton20992-240x240.jpg

[MoSpur]

At least two reasons why this will not happen.
1. Avery currently is happy collecting Cuban's money for not coaching.
2.I believe Pop actually is better at dealing with his players than AJ.

I seriously doubt it will happen. I am almost sure this wouldn't happen, but it was just a thought. I doubt AJ would want to come in as a special assistant.

[cherylsteele]

From what I have seen this year from Hill, he reminds me alot of Alvin Robertson when he was a rookie.
Not a great shooter, but got better as his rookie year went on.
Not a great ball handler but also go better.
Showed he had the prowess to be a great defender and this came to fruition in his 2nd year and beyond.
Hill and Alvin have very similar physical builds.
Hill is a much better ball handler than Mason. hill finishes at the rim much better, and doesn't get is shots blocked as much as Mason. Did you see the Suns back up center block Mason twice in a row, and when Mason had that break away layup, I was sure Grant hill would catch up and block that one too.

The reports I have read and such have said Hill has solid work ethic and has taken Pop criticism constructively, which indicates mental toughness, something Beno and others didn't seem to have.

[Spursfan092120]

I like Hill he is a good player already and should improve and he has very good length and athletic ability. But he is not a real point guard either. And he is just a rookie.
Umm...what? Please explain how he's not a real point guard.

[ALAMO-DEFENSE]

George Hill has a cheetah body. Please, can anyone put a cheetah pic vs. a George Hill pic ?

[alchemist]

He's a Really Really undersized 2 who Pop is trying to make him transition to the 1 where he will be an oversized 1.
exactly.

Another thing is that while Hill was the primary PG role he basically stood around the 3pt line dribbling not doing a damn thing. If Pop wants to convert a SG into a PG he needs Parker to take him under his wing to work with him. Last I heard it was Mason who took Hill under his wing.

[024]

to be fair, hill has been playing like crap lately. he's gotten plenty of chances at the first half of the season. popovich even gave him the starting point guard position when parker was out instead of giving it to vaughn. the only DNPs hill recieved were the first two games of the season. for a rookie drafted in the late round, that is pretty extraordinary.

popovich is thinking ahead. he already recognizes that hill is a rookie after all and probably should not be trusted too much during the playoffs, especially handling the ball at point. so pop is experimenting with different combinations to see if hill can be utilized effectively or if he needs to be benched for the entire playoffs. hill is still a rookie and has been given plenty of opportunities to demonstrate his effectiveness. i think the turning point was the nuggets game where he performed pretty poorly with the big 3 + finley out. hill will be better next year.

[ploto]

Steve Kerr was not past his prime when he joined the Spurs in 1999. He was 33 years old. His first time with the Spurs was painful to watch and he only regained his career through his time in Portland. His heroics in Dallas during his second stint were a direct result of his time in Portland not in San Antonio. And Remember, he only even played in that game bacause Tony got so sick.

Anthony Carter was declared useless and bought out by the Spurs 2003 and he is still playing in 2009 in the NBA logging 24 MPG.

Where is the thread saying Pop can't coach big men not named Duncan and Robinson? There has been just as much of a turnstile for those guys as for back-up PG's. Rasho-Nazr-Butler-Elson-Oberto-Bonner-Thomas. Maybe Pop simply can't coach average players.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

Umm...what? Please explain how he's not a real point guard.

What? Is this not obvious by see him play?

[rogcl1]

Steve Kerr was not past his prime when he joined the Spurs in 1999. He was 33 years old. His first time with the Spurs was painful to watch and he only regained his career through his time in Portland. His heroics in Dallas during his second stint were a direct result of his time in Portland not in San Antonio. And Remember, he only even played in that game bacause Tony got so sick.

Anthony Carter was declared useless and bought out by the Spurs 2003 and he is still playing in 2009 in the NBA logging 24 MPG.

Where is the thread saying Pop can't coach big men not named Duncan and Robinson? There has been just as much of a turnstile for those guys as for back-up PG's. Rasho-Nazr-Butler-Elson-Oberto-Bonner-Thomas. Maybe Pop simply can't coach average players.

Honestly, I have not kept up with Rasho since he left but I do not think the highlight reels are filled with clips of Rasho since he left. And just how much have Nazr, Elson , and Butler starred since they left here?

[Marcus Bryant]

Steve Kerr was not past his prime when he joined the Spurs in 1999. He was 33 years old. His first time with the Spurs was painful to watch and he only regained his career through his time in Portland. His heroics in Dallas during his second stint were a direct result of his time in Portland not in San Antonio. And Remember, he only even played in that game bacause Tony got so sick.

Anthony Carter was declared useless and bought out by the Spurs 2003 and he is still playing in 2009 in the NBA logging 24 MPG.

Where is the thread saying Pop can't coach big men not named Duncan and Robinson? There has been just as much of a turnstile for those guys as for back-up PG's. Rasho-Nazr-Butler-Elson-Oberto-Bonner-Thomas. Maybe Pop simply can't coach average players.


Carter did something else to piss off the Spurs.

[urunobili]

Carter did something else to piss off the Spurs.

sorry that i don;t know already MB... but can you share what that was?

[Fabbs]

Steve Kerr was not past his prime when he joined the Spurs in 1999. He was 33 years old. His first time with the Spurs was painful to watch and he only regained his career through his time in Portland. His heroics in Dallas during his second stint were a direct result of his time in Portland not in San Antonio. And Remember, he only even played in that game bacause Tony got so sick.
Remember it well Ploto. Gm 6 with Dallas set to tie it up at 3-3. Poppycock was beyond clueless, he had NO intention of playing Kerr. Not only did Tony go out, Speedy got injured too or was just sucking. Kerr absolutely positively saved that game not only with his 4-4 treys but great feeds into Duncan and a very timely steal.

[urunobili]

Remember it well Ploto. Gm 6 with Dallas set to tie it up at 3-3. Poppycock was beyond clueless, he had NO intention of playing Kerr. Not only did Tony go out, Speedy got injured too or was just sucking. Kerr absolutely positively saved that game not only with his 4-4 treys but great feeds into Duncan and a very timely steal.
The trey were Key.. but Jax and Manu were key for the 20-2 run.. and i would say AS KEY AS Kerr...
Manu had a trey some FT's and a basket and Jax had 2 trey himself...

[Fabbs]

Watch the game on DVD. Several of the treys by Jax-Manu were on great assists by Kerr.

Yeah Jax and Manu were keys too. This thread is about the pg tho.
63-48 ass kicking with only 2:55 left in the 3rd qtr before Kerr went in.

90-78 win. Kerr played 13 minutes. Anyone got the + - on that day? :hat:hat

[K-State Spur]

Steve Kerr was not past his prime when he joined the Spurs in 1999. He was 33 years old. His first time with the Spurs was painful to watch and he only regained his career through his time in Portland. His heroics in Dallas during his second stint were a direct result of his time in Portland not in San Antonio. And Remember, he only even played in that game bacause Tony got so sick.

Anthony Carter was declared useless and bought out by the Spurs 2003 and he is still playing in 2009 in the NBA logging 24 MPG.

Where is the thread saying Pop can't coach big men not named Duncan and Robinson? There has been just as much of a turnstile for those guys as for back-up PG's. Rasho-Nazr-Butler-Elson-Oberto-Bonner-Thomas. Maybe Pop simply can't coach average players.

33 is past prime for every guard in the history of the league with very few exceptions. As it was, most of his issues were with being asked to play a different role than he had in Chicago. What did he regain in Portland? His numbers that season were almost exactly the same as his numbers the year before and after...both in San Antonio.

And Anthony Carter received regular minutes as the back-up, he was just terrible with them. I don't know what he found after that to make him a league average player now, but he didn't have it then - or in his next two stops after SA.

[timvp]

To cover some broad points in this thread:

1. Jacque Vaughn can't be used as proof that Pop can coach backup point guards. JV has mostly been in an emergency third string role while with the Spurs. He, like every other backup PG, lost his job for stretches during the 2007 playoffs. The next year he lost his backup job for good. He's actually an example of Pop not really knowing what he wants from his backup point guard. He'll praise JV like he's the son of the basketball god ... and then bench him for there months a couple days later.

2. I don't think Hill is just benched until Manu comes back. Unless Manu is out for longer than is reported, why risk the confidence of your rookie backup point guard? Especially because Hill's main problem is a lack of assertiveness on offense. A demotion would, with most players, hurt rather than help.

3. I disagree that Pop needs to take a look at Mason's point guard skills prior to the playoffs. It's already obvious what he can do at that position -- not to mention that Mason already has started multiple games at PG. And Pop has a history of not caring about regular season experience at a position when making moves in the playoffs. Manu has played backup point in the playoffs after playing zero backup point guard minutes in the regular season. Barry went from shooting guard to point guard at the end of the 2005 Finals without Pop seeing him do it much prior to that point. (I would mention Finley at power forward in 2006 but that's too painful.)

Overall, I actually think Mason would make a good backup point guard. My wishing of Hill to be in the rotation isn't because I think Mason can't hack it. I actually mostly like what I see from him. But, like I said, I think he can play a similar role from the shooting guard position. Pop has plays for Manu to run pick-and-rolls so it's not like the offense is unable to handle pick-and-rolls initiated by the shooting guard.

Rather than anything negative towards Mason, it's more that I think Hill can help. And I don't like the idea of opening the door for more minutes from Finley and opening a door for Udoka to get the "we need a spark" role.

4. The Spurs have had some bad backup point guards over the years but they haven't been as bad as they've looked in Pop's system. Even old decrepit players like Stoudamire, Van Exel and Ward were somewhat useful in their previous stop. It can't be a coincidence that their careers all died the second the plane landed in San Antonio.

And cheapness isn't really a factor. Kerr was paid well. Porter was paid well. AD was paid well. Beno was on a rookie contract but he showed this summer that his actual value was much higher. Even a player like Jason Hart has gone on and gotten a decent amount of money throughout his career.

If Hill became a free agent this summer, he'd get quality offers. So equating contract value to playing ability doesn't make much sense in this situation. It's not like Pop has groomed backup point guards and then saw them leave after they blossomed. The opposite has mostly been true. The backup point guards have left with almost no value ... only to increase their value elsewhere (Beno, AD, Hart, AC, etc.)

5. Some are trying to broaden the scope of my complaint about Pop but I don't agree. He has a history of giving charity minutes to swingmen. Hedo did nothing to earn a starting job in 2004, yet Pop stuck by him through thick and thin. Pop never really liked Barry but it's not like he ever made it impossible for Barry to be part of the rotation. How many lives has he given Finley? Devin got his chances. Jack went from nothing to starter. The list of swingmen Pop has coddled can go on and on.

Same with bigmen. He got Nazr to play his best stretch of basketball in his career. He knew exactly how to coach Horry. He believed in Malik Rose when no one else did. He turned Rasho into a borderline great defender. The Spurs won a championship with the tag-team duo of Oberto and Elson ... possibly the worst pair of centers to ever win a championship.

So yeah, I only see this problem at the backup point guard position. You'd have to fight that battle on your own if you are trying to stretch my criticism to insinuate that Pop can't coach any bench players or coach any young players.

6. While Hill has regressed as of late and has definitely hit the rookie wall, I don't see how benching him and taking him out of the mix will help that. Every minute he gets on the court improves the likelihood that he'll be able to help during the playoffs. A player like Mason will play the same way at point guard whether or not he gets the job now or at some point in the first round. And honestly, the less scouting time the opposition has to figure out Mason's weaknesses, the better.

Playing time for Hill is extremely valuable at this point. Defensively, you have to play to be able to truly figure out player tendencies. Offensively, he needs to be a part of the rotation to figure out his niche as the team hopefully makes its stretch drive.

I wouldn't mind even Beno-style tough love. If you remember correctly, a lot of the time Beno would play in the first half and then after sucking Pop would go with someone else in the second half. Doing it that way at least gives Hill a chance. Being ready to serve Hill up with a DNP-CD against the Suns is even less trust than Pop showed Beno.

The bottomline is that playing Hill right now does nothing but help. The upside is you have a long, athletic, versatile defender who also draws fouls at a fantastic rate as the backup point guard. The downside is that Hill doesn't bounce back in time for the playoffs. Even in the downside scenario, letting Manu or Mason run the show in the 10 or so minutes Parker will rest in the playoffs is basically a plug-and-play option.

Playing Hill right now as the backup point can only help in the short term and the long term. But, as is always the case, Pop has a blind spot when it comes to handling backup point guards.

[timvp]

He's a Really Really undersized 2 who Pop is trying to make him transition to the 1 where he will be an oversized 1.Don't really agree. Hill has all the tools needed to be a quality point guard. He can handle the ball well. He doesn't fold against pressure. He can defend the position. He's a willing passer. The only thing I see lacking from him is confidence and aggressiveness ... which have been his weaknesses from Day 1.

But when he's playing confidently and aggressively, he does everything needed from a point guard ... especially a point guard for a team that runs a low post oriented motion offense.

For example, he's more of a point guard than players like Pargo or Eddie House. Even compared to Beno, Hill might be more of a point guard.

[Spurs Brazil]

From what I see from Pop all those years I think Hill will have a lot of DNP-CDs in the playoffs.

Finley and Mason will start, Manu will replace Mason, who will replace Parker.

Hill D is very good but Pop just doesn't trust in his O

[xtremesteven33]

Good post from TIMVP but i still think that Hill is our backup PG and that Pop is just trying to see different options.

I dont think Hill has done so horribly that Pop would just totally not play him. We all know that as long as you can play good defense you will get minutes in the Spurs system. Hill plays good (borderline GREAT defense) when hes on the court. And i know the coaching staff knows this and i highly doubt they will can Hills minutes.

[K-State Spur]

4. The Spurs have had some bad backup point guards over the years but they haven't been as bad as they've looked in Pop's system. Even old decrepit players like Stoudamire, Van Exel and Ward were somewhat useful in their previous stop. It can't be a coincidence that their careers all died the second the plane landed in San Antonio.

I still really disagree with this point.

Stoudamire hadn't been good in 3 years, and that was getting regular minutes on a bad team.

Van Exel posted almost the exact same per-minute numbers in San Antonio that he did his previous 2 years in Portland & GS. We may remember him for still being a threat with Dallas, but that was 3 years before the Spurs were able to sign him.

Outside of being just flat out terrible in the playoffs that year, he was basically everything that the Spurs should have been able to expect - although many of us hoped for more.

Ward had more bad years than good years in his career. He was worse here than he had been in NY, but since he came in mid-season and had to adjust on the fly, some drop-off should have been accepted.

[rogcl1]

I do agree that I think it is important for Hill to get minutes now. I also believe though that on a team preparing for a champiomship run that it is hard to play him at the point at times when he plays with the lack of agression that he has lately. Hopefully Pop is trying to get him some time by playing him some at the 2. I do not claim to know all things. But yes , I do want him to get minutes as much as possible. As I said ,I do not always agree with Pops decisions but I certainly respect them.
I do disagree with you on Van Excel and Stoudamire. I think they were basically done when they got here. Correct me if I am wrong, but did either of them contribute anywhere after they left here?
Another stop gap backup that I thought did OK in a limited situation when called on was Hart and he also had a job after he left here.

[vander]

EPIC Fail

They won 3 rings playing together like 30 minutes and now they overlap?

Just let your Manu hate/TP homerism go and maybe you'll understand the Spurs system better...

wow, you are like... NEVER right about anything :lol
manu hardly ever plays 30 minutes, let alone 30 with TP. :lol

why do you think manu off the bench has always led to more success for the spurs? because TP and Manu are getting split up: for the first 6 minutes it's TP's show, then Manu comes in and it's his.

and that post wasn't even a dig on manu, I was praising him as our second best PG/Creator of offense, but you only saw what you wanted to see

[Bruno]

I still really disagree with this point.

Stoudamire hadn't been good in 3 years, and that was getting regular minutes on a bad team.

Van Exel posted almost the exact same per-minute numbers in San Antonio that he did his previous 2 years in Portland & GS. We may remember him for still being a threat with Dallas, but that was 3 years before the Spurs were able to sign him.

Outside of being just flat out terrible in the playoffs that year, he was basically everything that the Spurs should have been able to expect - although many of us hoped for more.

Ward had more bad years than good years in his career. He was worse here than he had been in NY, but since he came in mid-season and had to adjust on the fly, some drop-off should have been accepted.

100% agree.

Stoudamire was quite done when Spurs signed him. The best proof of that is that he tried to play this year without success. He had a workout for Phoenix and they choose Dee Brown over him. :rollin
NVE wasn't that bad before he injured his wrist. I guess the fact that Pop can't coach PG is the reason of this injury...

Since 2003, Spurs backup PGs have been damn limited (Hart, Carter, Vaughn), done (Ward, Stoudamire), injured (NVE) or a Diva (Beno). Pop hasn't been able to turn lead into gold but it doesn't mean that he can't coach backup PGs.

[Fabbs]

I still really disagree with this point.

Stoudamire hadn't been good in 3 years, and that was getting regular minutes on a bad team.

Van Exel posted almost the exact same per-minute numbers in San Antonio that he did his previous 2 years in Portland & GS. We may remember him for still being a threat with Dallas, but that was 3 years before the Spurs were able to sign him.

Outside of being just flat out terrible in the playoffs that year, he was basically everything that the Spurs should have been able to expect - although many of us hoped for more.

Ward had more bad years than good years in his career. He was worse here than he had been in NY, but since he came in mid-season and had to adjust on the fly, some drop-off should have been accepted.
Stoudimire came in and was doing really well. Distributing the ball, taking timely shots and making most of them. Timvp chronicled and i think it was (or became) common knowledge that Popped ordered him to shoot more, wayy more like almost Michael Finley type chucking more. Stoudamire complied and it screwed up his game. Remember that Timvp?

Meddling control freak who orders a player to change just so he can show who is in control is what it appears with the backup pgs. And now are we going to see the same thing with Hill?

As to Van Ex getting minutes and sucking, whose idea to sign him and who sent and left him in the game(s)? Popped.

[GSH]

I understand the rant. I'll throw in my 2 cents:

When they finally got to interview Pop about Drew Gooden coming to the team, one of the first things Pop said about him was, "He's a professional." That's a recurring theme with Pop. He places extremely high value on experience - guys who have "seen it all before". Especially in the latter part of the season and the playoffs. Tony Parker was a notable exception, but then again Pop didn't have much choice those first couple of years. Even so, for all the talk of Pop and Tony's special relationship, Pop would have brought in Jason Kidd in a heartbeat. That should tell you something about where George Hill stands.

Pop has also made it more clear than ever that they have 3 stars on the team, and everyone else has to fill a gap in the system. He's not looking for any skills in those positions, other than the ability and willingness to fill that gap. Think about it: Don Nelson will look at any group of 5 guys, figure out what he has, and fit them into a scheme. Pop's style is almost the exact opposite. A player who brings "something extra" doesn't add value, because something extra means something different. Pop will accept a guy with lesser (or aging) skills, if he believes that player executes the system more precisely. Under Pop, a backup PG is not a substitute star - they Spurs have exactly 3 of those.

My guess is that Mason's experience (professionalism? age?) outweigh Hill's better ball-handling skills and speed, in Pop's mind. Pop looks for someone he can depend on in a crunch, and Hill has hit a rough patch lately. But I also think that Hill's defensive performance against Nash has pushed him back nearer the front of Pop's mental list. Because if there is one trait that fills the gaps in Pop's system, it's defense. Maybe, to some degree, he will start to think of Hill a little bit the way he learned to think of Manu, and "take the bad with the good". If Hill can excel on defense (within Pop' defensive scheme), I think Pop will accept some breakdowns on the offensive end.

I don't think anyone is immune to criticism, or improvement, including Pop. I think his style has probably not done justice to some players - Malik Rose, Turkoglu, and Ime being examples. But since his job is to win games and championships, I honestly don't think that there is another person on the planet who has the track record to say that his style is wrong. I catch myself thinking it from time to time - especially when they lose a couple of games they "should have won". And then I look at the fact that they are on pace to win probably 55 games in what feels like a "bad" season.

For the record, I think Hill is much better at the PG spot than Mason. He makes some rookie (and former 2 guard) mistakes, but his quickness and ball-handling skills get more people good looks. The offense always looks and feels stagnant to me when Mason is at the point. But I also thought Pops Mensah-Bonsu had some skills that the Spurs could use. Maybe throw him some alley-oops to punish the other teams for fronting our bigs, for instance? Bottom line, I don't think Coach Popovich is interested in adding any new dimensions to his system. Bonsu's best chance would have been to be a more athletic version of Fab. The same thing is going to apply to Drew Gooden. Maybe that's what Pop meant when he called Gooden "a professional"? I'd be willing to bet that was the centerpiece of their conversation - "Can you be satisfied by being a supporting piece for the Big 3?" That's all Pop asks of anybody not named Tim, Tony, or Manu.

[lurker23]

Good posts timvp. Hill's defense and rebounding are valuable commodities that this team needs to take advantage of. As far as the other side of the ball goes, I was planning on starting a thread about how to get Hill more involved in the offense, but I'll just post my thoughts here.

1. The bottom line in all of this is that Hill needs more minutes. I've produced statistics in the past that show that he performs significantly better offensively when he has quality minutes to get into the flow of the game (also, this statement is simply common sense- limited minutes means limited production for most players).

2. The best way to get Hill minutes is at backup PG. When Manu comes back, extra minutes at the 2/3 positions will be few and far between. Manu will get his 30 mpg come the playoffs, Mason will get more minutes, Finley will get at least as many minutes, and Bowen will get more minutes. There's simply no room for Hill (or Udoka/Hairston for that matter).

3. The way the coaches have Hill playing in the current offense is simply useless. They have him go to the corner in a Bruce Bowen type role, but here's the problem: there's no evidence that he can hit the corner 3. Therefore, not only does he get next to zero touches, defenses can sag off of him and crowd the lane.

4. As far as I see it, there are two major ways of getting Hill more involved in the offense:

a. Instead of sending him to the corner, allow him to play on the wing. At this point his offense is largely predicated on penetration, something that is much more easily accomplished from the wing. This would allow him to get more touches, use screens, and make cuts where he can be found by other players who get collapsed on in the lane (Parker, Duncan, etc.).

b. The more attractive and more successful solution is the simpler one: give him back the backup PG slot. Hill has good handles, good court vision, and generally knows when to get out of the way (sometimes to a fault). Putting the ball in his hands for every single possession gives him a chance to feel out the defense. In addition, given his prolific scoring in HS and college, Hill is quite simply used to having the ball in his hands as much as possible. While I imagine Pop is trying to ween him off of that role, that is where he is comfortable at the moment, and trying to rush him away from that cold turkey is likely to be unsuccessful.

[timvp]

Stoudamire hadn't been good in 3 years, and that was getting regular minutes on a bad team.There's a difference between not being good and being flat out horrible. Prior to getting released by the Grizzlies, Stoudamire had a PER of 11.8 and a true shooting percentage of 51.4%. He comes to San Antonio and his PER drops to 4.6 and his shooting TSP drops to 36.2%.

And if you remember correctly, Stoudamire played well right out of the gates for the Spurs. He helped the Spurs win a few games and was shooting well and distributing the ball.

Then Pop told Stoudamire that he needed to shoot more, pass less and be more aggressive. The result? Stoudamire went from being a capable backup to someone whose career was over.


Van Exel posted almost the exact same per-minute numbers in San Antonio that he did his previous 2 years in Portland & GS. We may remember him for still being a threat with Dallas, but that was 3 years before the Spurs were able to sign him.

Outside of being just flat out terrible in the playoffs that year, he was basically everything that the Spurs should have been able to expect - although many of us hoped for more.

Van Exel's numbers were worse across the board. Worse scoring, worse shooting, less assists, more turnovers, less steals, less rebounding, worse PER ... basically it was a clean sweep for the worse.

And digging deeper into the numbers, Van Exel played by far his best basketball to begin the year. In the month of November, he was shooting great and his assists numbers were solid. Then came the "Nick needs to be Nick" card from Pop and Van Exel's career was over soon thereafter.



Ward had more bad years than good years in his career. He was worse here than he had been in NY, but since he came in mid-season and had to adjust on the fly, some drop-off should have been accepted.Charlie Ward had an amazing drop in production after coming to the Spurs. Much more of a drop than a simple "getting adjusted" type drop. With the Knicks, he had a 17.5 PER. The Spurs get him during the same season and his PER drops all the way to 8.7. His true shooting percentage drops more than 11% and his rate of assists drops by more than half.

And, like the third straight example in this post, Ward played by far his best basketball early on during his Spurs stint. In his first two weeks with the team, he was stealing minutes from Parker and even finishing games. That adjustment period you talked about didn't appear to be an issue.

Flash forward a few more weeks and Ward was totally discombobulated and was soon out of the rotation.

In a case by case basis, there can be excuses. But when virtually every back up point guard comes to San Antonio and plays worse, the pattern must be noted. Especially when the point guards starts out playing well and then their production dips the more Pop coaches them.

(BTW, thanks for making me research this because I now believe my stance even more. There's just no other logical explanation. These players didn't get old overnight. They didn't struggle to adjust ... instead, they struggled to maintain under Pop.)

[tmtcsc]

Sorry Timvp, we don't see eye to eye on this. Stoudamire, Van Exel and especially Charlie Ward were just not very good anymore. Pop liked the fact that all 3 of these guys could take pressure off of Tim by offering some offense and by spreading the floor. They all failed to do that.

I think the defensive responsibilities within Pop's system may have something to do with it. You want to know who a success story is ? Matt Bonner. While he's limited on D, he finally gets it. He says it over and over in interviews.

"Pop says to shoot when I have an open shot. If I don't, I'm off the floor. It's pretty simple." He's gotten yelled at by Tim and by Pop but he's maintained his proffesionalism throughout. Those are the guys that stick around. If Pop puts you on the floor to shoot, you better shoot. That's why Brent sucked ass for so long.


Perhaps the early success of those other 3 players was due to Pop dumbing down the system for them as they got started. Once they had to start thinking, it was over. They had to start thinking about defensive rotations, had to actually defend and then they had to make OPEN shots. I think sometimes these guys also get caught up with the pressure of playing well on Championship caliber team. As in, they don't want to F-up the team by being a little selfish and letting the ball fly.

Mason gets it, thank God.

[timvp]

Stoudamire was quite done when Spurs signed him. His stats on the Grizzlies would have been fine on the Spurs. So no, he wasn't done.

The best proof of that is that he tried to play this year without success. He had a workout for Phoenix and they choose Dee Brown over him. :rollinAh yes, because Kerr is such a super scout :lmao

I don't disagree that Stoudamire was done but using Kerr as your proof? Which of Kerr's moves tells you he knows what he's doing?



NVE wasn't that bad before he injured his wrist. Elbow :reading

And like I said, you can make excuses for each individual case but when they all follow a similar pattern, then there might be something more to it than "LOL they suck".


Since 2003Pop has been the coach since 1997. Cherry-picking a time frame doesn't make sense since I'm talking about Pop's coaching on the whole. If you want to play the contract card, how do you explain Kerr, Porter and AD? All three were backup point guards making a good chunk of cash.


Spurs backup PGs have been damn limited (Hart, Carter, Vaughn)So limited that Hart and Carter are still in the NBA a half decade later . . .


, done (Ward, Stoudamire)Both players were brought in during the season. Both players saw their production slip by about half. How can they suddenly be "done" once they sign with the Spurs?

I can buy the done argument if these players were signed at the beginning of a season and they had just aged too much during the offseason. But they were signed during the middle of a season. They both played well to begin their Spurs careers. They both ended up playing worse and worse for Pop until they were in street clothes.


Pop hasn't been able to turn lead into gold but it doesn't mean that he can't coach backup PGs.I'm not asking him to turn lead into gold. I would just like for him not to melt the lead.

[Old School 44]

Like some other posters believe, I think Pop’s just tinkering while Manu’s out.

I don’t agree with the notion that Pop can’t coach backup point guards. Hill will be the primary backup point guard in the playoffs. Defensively, he’s too valuable to not play. Pop still has his moments, but he’s actually softened up a bit, since TP’s rookie days and I think he taken this softer stance with Hill's development.

My thought about the failure of some of the other point guards and even other new players is that most initially tried too hard to fit in, deferring to the Big Three. The only one who I thought attempted to play his same game was Van Exel, but I don’t think he was ever really healthy during the time he was here. Because the expectations are so high here, with the 4 titles and numerous playoff appearances, and the overall good guy image of the Spurs, I think players just press a little when they first put on the silver and black.

[Leetonidas]

Perhaps, timvp, all those players numbers plummeted because they were interchanged between 2nd and 3rd string and saw probably a substantial drop in their minutes. Plus, you can't compare Damon Stoudamire's numbers on a shitty Grizzlies team where he was probably one of their better options to that of his on the Spurs, where he was basically a 8th-12th man, or IR fodder. Same with Ward and NVE.

[Leetonidas]

Oh, and Jason Hart and Anthony Carter are not very good.

Let's not forget about Mike Wilks. He sucked ass too.

[benefactor]

The thing I don't understand is that when we drafted Hill, all the talk was about him transitioning from the SG spot to the point. So have we gone away from that? Lately it seems like he spends more time at the two and much less time handling the ball.

I bet Hill is wondering what the hell is going on right now, but I think he is a tough kid and he will weather the storm of Pop's bizarre tinkering. But that being said, it would be nice to see some consistency with the game plan. Pop needs to allow Hill to develop as a point(as was initially planned) instead of yanking him out of one role and forcing another on him.

[ploto]

And Anthony Carter received regular minutes as the back-up, he was just terrible with them.
Carter played all of five games for the Spurs.

[ploto]

Jason Hart and Anthony Carter are not very good.

Not too bad for a guy who supposedly was not good enough to be the back-up PG in SA 6 years ago:

08-09 DEN
MPG 23.6
FG % .439
RPG 2.7
APG 4.5
SPG 1.2
PPG 5.5

[K-State Spur]

And if you remember correctly, Stoudamire played well right out of the gates for the Spurs. He helped the Spurs win a few games and was shooting well and distributing the ball.

Van Exel's numbers were worse across the board. Worse scoring, worse shooting, less assists, more turnovers, less steals, less rebounding, worse PER ... basically it was a clean sweep for the worse.

And digging deeper into the numbers, Van Exel played by far his best basketball to begin the year. In the month of November, he was shooting great and his assists numbers were solid. Then came the "Nick needs to be Nick" card from Pop and Van Exel's career was over soon thereafter.


Charlie Ward had an amazing drop in production after coming to the Spurs. Much more of a drop than a simple "getting adjusted" type drop. With the Knicks, he had a 17.5 PER. The Spurs get him during the same season and his PER drops all the way to 8.7. His true shooting percentage drops more than 11% and his rate of assists drops by more than half.

And, like the third straight example in this post, Ward played by far his best basketball early on during his Spurs stint. In his first two weeks with the team, he was stealing minutes from Parker and even finishing games. That adjustment period you talked about didn't appear to be an issue.

(BTW, thanks for making me research this because I now believe my stance even more. There's just no other logical explanation. These players didn't get old overnight. They didn't struggle to adjust ... instead, they struggled to maintain under Pop.)

You didn't research Van Exel's very well. Per minute - his scoring was virtually identical to what it had been the previous 2 years, his shooting percentage was higher, his 3 point percentage was right in the middle, he averaged 1 less assist per 36 in san antonio (which is normal in the spurs offense), his turnovers were the same, his steals were on par, and he actually had one of the best (per minute) rebounding years of his career.

I do know that Stoudamire played much better out of the gate with the team. My two points on that will be 1) that was the only time during the season where he was able to get regular heavy minutes with the team (Parker injury) and 2) i think it's just (if not more) likely that he went on a hot streak after getting to rest up a month, and then regressed back to his 34 year old self as it is that he came in, found out instantly how to turn back the clock 5 years, then let Pop into his head by telling him that he's a good shooter and should do so more. Stoudamire had been well below average for 3 years leading up to last, so when he finally falls off a cliff at 34, I can't say that it's his new coach's fault.

And Ward had so many prolonged stretches of bad basketball throughout his career and rarely had to try to fit into a championship contender, that I'm not sure case evidence of him proves much of anything. He was having a decent year when he joined the Spurs, but the two leading up to that had been pretty terrible. In addition, the numbers he was posting were on terrible teams.


I don't disagree with your overall thesis, I agree that Pop is misusing Hill at the moment. However, I still think the overriding reason that we haven't been able to find any long-term answer at the back-up PG is because...we haven't found any good players to be a back-up PG. When you consistently sign regressing or inconsistent players to man the position, it's not the coach's fault that they keep regressing (sometimes even magnified because of a new system and playing in meaningful games) and/or are inconsistent.

[Cane]

If a player has a weak mentality, ie wouldn't be able to make it through military boot camp mental games, then he's going to have trouble adapting to Pop's R. Lee Ermey-esque coaching style. He gets on everyone's case and some players don't thrive under that kind of pressure.

[GSH]

Oh, and Jason Hart and Anthony Carter are not very good.

Let's not forget about Mike Wilks. He sucked ass too.


Oh, and Jason Hart ... not very good.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. I may be one of the leading local expert on Jason Hart, since I followed him after he left. He's probably the best backup PG the Spurs have had in the last 10 years. He's solid. He distributes the ball well, he doesn't turn the ball over, and he defends. If he had a better jumper, he would have spent most of his career as a starter somewhere. But when he has been called on to start, and gotten starter's minutes, he has been a very solid and consistent performer.

The year after the Spurs let him go, he averaged about 11 points, 7 assists, and 3.6 rebounds as a starter. Tony Parker averaged 16.6, 6.1, and 3.7. Parker's assist/turnover was about 2.5/1, and Hart's was about 3.5/1. That season, Parker got to the line about 4.25 times per 36 minutes, and Hart went about 3.8 times per 36 minutes. And it wouldn't hurt to consider that Parker had Tim, Manu, and company to help him put up those numbers.

Hart is no Tony Parker, and he's more of a pure point guard in that he isn't a big scorer. But as a backup? He is way above average. And I think he's a very good example of what TimVP is talking about. People looked at him like he was garbage while he was here, because (it seemed) Pop clearly didn't value him. But he sure as hell had value to Charlotte the next year.

If Jason Hart had gotten the time with Chip Engellund that Parker has gotten, and/or gotten some quality minutes while he was here? You would think about him completely differently. Instead, there appeared to be a complete disinterest in him as a player. The point TimVP was making, I think, is that Hill is worth the investment. Not just in the future, but this season.

[callo1]

I think what Pop did was brilliant. He understands that rookies hit a wall at mid-season. Pop is limiting Hill's minutes so he will be fresh come playoff time.

Terry Porter was on his last leg when he came to the Spurs, and Kerr never played defense, but still had some excellent offensive games for the Spurs (2003 versus the Mavs and the Nets). We all know that you must play D to get on the floor for Pop. I think Pop putting Hill in the game yesterday actually shows how much confidence he really has in him.

Pop doesn't put up with mental midgets, just ask Beno, Hedo etc. How many rings did those guys win after leaving the Spurs? How many did the Spurs win after they left?

[Bruno]

His stats on the Grizzlies would have been fine on the Spurs. So no, he wasn't done.

Memphis won 22 games last year. Putting stats with a 22 win team isn't exactly the same than putting stats with a 56 win team.
Even Jason Hart had solid stats with a crappy Bobcats team in 04-05.



I don't disagree that Stoudamire was done but using Kerr as your proof? Which of Kerr's moves tells you he knows what he's doing?

I remember a poster whose name start by tim and end by vp calling Kerr's two biggest trades (the trade for Shaq and the trade for Jason Richardson) good trades...



And like I said, you can make excuses for each individual case but when they all follow a similar pattern, then there might be something more to it than "LOL they suck".

Well they sucked. It's quite hard to put the failure of a player on a coach when the player sucks. And, as I said before, the reason why so much backup PG have failed is because Spurs never put the money to get a decent one and when they have invested a low first round pick, it was on Beno.



Pop has been the coach since 1997. Cherry-picking a time frame doesn't make sense since I'm talking about Pop's coaching on the whole. If you want to play the contract card, how do you explain Kerr, Porter and AD? All three were backup point guards making a good chunk of cash.

Porter and AD are good example that your theory is wrong. I don't know why you bring these names.



So limited that Hart and Carter are still in the NBA a half decade later . . .

Vaughn has played 12 seasons in the NBA. I guess he isn't limited...
Hart has had one good year with a crappy team.
Carter has started to be somewhat decent 3 years after he left Spurs.



Both players were brought in during the season. Both players saw their production slip by about half. How can they suddenly be "done" once they sign with the Spurs?

I can buy the done argument if these players were signed at the beginning of a season and they had just aged too much during the offseason. But they were signed during the middle of a season. They both played well to begin their Spurs careers. They both ended up playing worse and worse for Pop until they were in street clothes.

They were "done" because they both basically had to end their NBA career after having played for Spurs.
Both played well for bad/average teams but weren't able to play well for a contender.
And Stoudamire played well two games before sucking. What a great proof that he wasn't done...

[El Jefe]

His stats on the Grizzlies would have been fine on the Spurs. So no, he wasn't done.


I'll generally agree with your point. Pop does seem especially hard on his back up point, and Stoudamire did look good for a small sample size before being given the cringe worthy instruction of "Shoot more, pass less"....

But I don't buy the "His stats on the Grizz would have been fine" line. Putting up good numbers on a bad team is a well known phenomenon. Just because he was posting numbers on the Grizz does not prove that he still had any gas left in the tank.

I tend to think that's the case with several of these guys. They put up good numbers on a bad team before coming here (Stoudamire), or they put up good numbers on a bad team after leaving here (Beno). Guys like this are capable of getting theirs when there are plenty of shots going around, but they do nothing to further the cause of winning, and thus they are more than expendable to the Spurs.

You are onto something though Timvp, Pop is harder on his PG than pretty much anyone else on the roster. Wasn't he a PG in his playing days? Is it true that coaches are harder on their old position than anyone else?

[Horse]

You know I've often questioned Pop, I was made as hell when Parker took antonio daniels job, And just as made when he let stephen jackson get away. But just look at Parker and jackson's replacement Ginobili now. We just have to trust in Pop it's just that simple.

[mookie2001]

i always liked jason hart, shouldve kept him

[Obstructed_View]

Not just point guards, see Rasho and Nazr, 2006 playoffs, under the heading "smallball". Speaking as someone that thinks the Spurs have had a legitimate chance at the title virtually every season since 2002, the Spurs' coaching staff misses the forest for the trees far too often for my comfort, and I now get a familiar sourness in the pit of my stomach when I see Finley getting so many minutes, so many tiny lineups on the floor, and seeing Roger Mason running the point as a 13 point lead turns into a 2 point deficit.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I agree for the most part, but not for NVE. That guy was flat out washed out when he got here, end of story. His defense made Beno's look like Bowen's.

There isn't a more obvious example than Chuck Ward and Damon Stoudemire. You seriously can mark, by the day, or moment, when DS started playing like this. It was the day after Pop told him he wanted to be more aggressive. It was like clockwork. And it was disgusting, because by just being himself, he helped us edge out a few RRT wins. Chuck Ward's stroke and 3pt % was destroyed by Pop.

The more and more I dwell on this RMJ at PG strategy, I like it less and less. From Hill's one man stop of a fast break alley oop on Friday, to his complete pwnage of a 2 time MVP in crunch time, this kid IS our spark off the bench right now.

Not even giving him a chance is an insult and shoots this team's chances to improve right in the foot.

[mabrignani]

speedy claxton

[Capt Bringdown]

Not just point guards, see Rasho and Nazr, 2006 playoffs, under the heading "smallball". Speaking as someone that thinks the Spurs have had a legitimate chance at the title virtually every season since 2002, the Spurs' coaching staff misses the forest for the trees far too often for my comfort, and I now get a familiar sourness in the pit of my stomach when I see Finley getting so many minutes, so many tiny lineups on the floor, and seeing Roger Mason running the point as a 13 point lead turns into a 2 point deficit.

+1.
You start to see patterns that cannot be attributed entirely to the personnel - coaching definitely has a bearing on these things.

For the tough love proponents, where's the tough love with Finley? The dude can take entire games, or even months off, but Pop's patience with him is bottomless.

[K-State Spur]

Not just point guards, see Rasho and Nazr, 2006 playoffs, under the heading "smallball". Speaking as someone that thinks the Spurs have had a legitimate chance at the title virtually every season since 2002, the Spurs' coaching staff misses the forest for the trees far too often for my comfort, and I now get a familiar sourness in the pit of my stomach when I see Finley getting so many minutes, so many tiny lineups on the floor, and seeing Roger Mason running the point as a 13 point lead turns into a 2 point deficit.

Controversial subject on here I know, but the staff was actually right about small ball being the way to beat that Mavs team. Unfortunately we didn't have the hybrid 3/4 player that we really needed to make it work.

Since the Spurs got beat, we all would have much rather gone down playing with the traditional line-up. But the Warriors showed the next year how you susceptible the Mavs were to the small ball approach.

[GSH]

Memphis won 22 games last year. Putting stats with a 22 win team isn't exactly the same than putting stats with a 56 win team.
Even Jason Hart had solid stats with a crappy Bobcats team in 04-05.



Putting up points or boards on a crappy team is one thing. Putting up assists is another. Putting up almost 7 assists with a very good AST/TO ratio while on a crappy team is something else entirely. A crappy backup PG can't do that. Period. I know you know the game well enough. You're just not prepared to think of Jason Hart as a decent backup PG. And it's because of what happened when he played here. And that's what TimVP is talking about.

Hart's AST/TO ratio in 04/05 was about 3.5. Look at which PG's have 5+ AST/G and an AST/TO ratios above 3.0 this season: Calderon, Paul, Kidd, Fisher, Rondo, D. Williams. Billups would usually be on the list, but not in Denver. The closest comparisons to Hart's numbers would be last year's numbers for Sebastian Telfair (Seattle) or Earl Watson (Minnesota). Neither one of them are top tier PG's, obviously. But neither one are scrubs that you wouldn't want coming off your bench. And Hart is 6-3, and a better defender than either of them.

[Obstructed_View]

Controversial subject on here I know, but the staff was actually right about small ball being the way to beat that Mavs team. Unfortunately we didn't have the hybrid 3/4 player that we really needed to make it work.

Since the Spurs got beat, we all would have much rather gone down playing with the traditional line-up. But the Warriors showed the next year how you susceptible the Mavs were to the small ball approach.

The Spurs won 63 games with the traditional lineup, and made the change to the smallball lineup during the Sacramento series, so any suggestion that it was a Dallas strategy is just wrong. They were under .500 in the playoffs with the small lineup and lost in overtime of game seven against the Mavericks because it took them three games just to adjust to having to try to outscore the opponent due to the sudden and complete lack of interior defense. You never make adjustments to your own team in order to deal with a team that's inferior to you. Not coincidentally, that's exactly what AJ did with the Mavericks against Golden State.

If you decide smallball is the way to beat a team, then you start using it six months beforehand and only use it when it's working rather than claiming it as the new team philosophy two games into the playoffs, especially when one of those games was a 45 point blowout win. The refusal to put either of the centers in at any point is not justifiable. To emphasise the point, when Horry and Duncan were in foul trouble in one game during the Dallas series, Pop put Oberto on the floor, who was a rookie at the time and had no idea how to play with the Spurs. Going small is one thing, but completely removing both centers from the rotation even though they're completely healthy against a team that had a center rotation of Diop and Dampier playing alongside Nowitzki? Any argument that he wasn't punishing Rasho and Nazr for some reason goes out the window at exactly that moment.

[Bruno]

Putting up points or boards on a crappy team is one thing. Putting up assists is another. Putting up almost 7 assists with a very good AST/TO ratio while on a crappy team is something else entirely. A crappy backup PG can't do that. Period. I know you know the game well enough. You're just not prepared to think of Jason Hart as a decent backup PG. And it's because of what happened when he played here. And that's what TimVP is talking about.


First, it was 5 apg.

Second, you have a very strange way to see things by looking only at 04-05. Jason Hart has continued to play after his year in Charlotte and he hasn't been a decent backup PG.

[ducks]

speedy claxton

was not that great

[picnroll]

Only having read the firs post:

Ward sucked sucked and was washed up.
Stoudemire sucked and was washed up.
Van Exel sucked Pop went with him way too long.
My gerbil has bigger balls and more heart than Beno. He even proved that in Europe before he came to the states.
Pop went with and trusted Claxton in the playoffs even though he missed most of the season.
Pop went with Daniels and he sucked against the Lakers in the playoffs and then the next season he told Pop he didn't want to play PG. Enter TP.
Kerr? He was caught in a numbers game. Pop probably could have used him more.

Hill needs to get more aggressive. Maybe cutting his playing time will get him more aggressive. If it doesn't he's too fragile anyways. Timvp you frequently talk about good PGs needing to be supremely confident. If Hill is so fragile and needs to be coddled why do you think he'll be any good?

[GSH]

First, it was 5 apg.

Second, you have a very strange way to see things by looking only at 04-05. Jason Hart has continued to play after his year in Charlotte and he hasn't been a decent backup PG.

First - you're wrong.
Second - now you're being a dick.

I said as a starter, getting starter's minutes. (It wouldn't be fair to compare the per-game numbers of a backup to a starter, now would it?) As a starter, he put up 6.9 AST/G with an AST/TO ratio of 3.49. Feel free to look it up.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/psplit.cgi?player=hartja01&year=2005
When somebody who knows what they are talking about is that certain, you should probably stop and think before firing off your response.

Since then he had some injuries. But in 06-07, he put up 9 PPG, 4.2 AST, and 3.6 RBS as a starter, with a very respectable 2.7 AST/TO ratio. His per-36 numbers have always been solid. When his number has been called, and he got to put in respectable minutes, he has stepped up.

You don't like him? Fine. The Bobcats paid him $1.4 Million. The Kings/Clippers paid him $1.54 Million. Utah paid him $2.3 Million. Don't you wish you sucked that badly at PG? I think he could have been a solid backup here. You don't, we disagree... leave it at that.

[Solid D]

Hill isn't scoring enough, yet, to be a productive offensive threat. So, Pop has been using George for defense lately and then on offense... pairing him with a scorer in the backcourt (Parker or Mason) in order to hold leads. I think Pop wants perfection and that puts pressure on players trying to learn to play on this team. Sometimes it sterilizes and lobotomizes but he wants them to become hardened...to become strong men. He likes players to figure out where they can be productive and in what situations.

So now, George finds himself watching Parker while Jacque Vaughn whispers in his ear and his coach, well...he doesn't exactly whisper.

There is a stark contrast in the way Beno Udrih and George Hill have handled the same "assignment" from Gregg Popovich. That assignment: pick up the opposing ball-handler in a 40 defense (full-court) and make them waste clock, bother them, make them uncomfortable.

Beno was a reluctant defender and basically played a 30 defense...picking up his man at 3/4 court. It infuriated Pop.

George has been different in that, like Parker and Jacque Vaughn and Avery Johnson, he will pressure the ball when he is asked to do so. His pressure on Steve Nash was exactly what Pop asked him to do.

George may make it through Pop's meat-grinder....if he learns how to finish off a dribble-drive. Pop's guards must defend first, then score. They have to figure it out or get blown out the tailpipe. That's just the way it is.

[The Truth #6]

Disagree.

Spurs have struggled at the backup PG spot for years but you try to explain that by a wild theory (Pop being a good coach except for backup PG spot :downspin: ) while in fact the explanation is as simple as it can be.

The last time Spurs had a good backup PG was in 03 with Speedy. Since that, Spurs never spend more than $1.5M per year on a backup PG. The less money you spend, the harder it is to find a good player. Spurs never made the investment to get a good backup PG. You can regret it but when you had a limited amount of money, you had to make choices.

I don't see how a strict monetary argument makes any sense at all when a good number of these point guards were on rookie contracts - AD, Beno, and now Hill, to name a few. The first two are making decent money right now. You can't say they can't play. Marbury makes a ton of money and is a point guard - does that mean he's a great player? Of course not. We had backups with potential, but many of them failed in trying to figure out how to please the boss.

Players have done well when Pop is forced to play them and they know they'll get minutes - Hill in the earlier part of the season and Bonner earlier in the season when KT looked like toast.

I don't see how one can take Pop out of this equation. He always preaches for players to get over themselves. Has anyone ever asked him to do the same? His whimsical, experimental lineup changes might suggest some grand master plan, but sometimes it appears if he's either bored, using losing as a motivational tactic, or something else altogether.

His system/structure has gotten us great results, no doubt about it, but there are moments that are real head scratchers that don't seem to make sense. The Spurs system is all about sharing and teamwork and yet some players on the second unit are instructed to jack it up. It's like the system falls apart when the bench is out there.

[Brutalis]

I don't think Pop is giving up on Hill. I think we are a championship contending team working a rookie point guard into an easy small town but intense ruled system. A successful one.

I agree with most everything else.

Also the problem may lay in other places. Perhaps how there aren't too often defensive minded point guards that can bring the ball down the court Spurs' style. Damon was always a selfish player. Maybe a couple seasons with Portland he played team ball because there were better scorers and quite frankly several of them.

Nick Van Exel was a sharp tongued asshole at the peak of his career. No way he ever could wear a Spur uniform under Pops' command with his attitude problems.

AD was a decent player. To me he was like the runt that made it. His game looks completely awkward yet he produces off the bench from time to time. Or he did anyways for a couple seasons east. Faster systems he rotated in for a while, nothing like the much slower pace of the Spurs. So when his time did come with us, he usually was cold.

Beno was trash. That's my opinion and no random useless knowledge of mine can argue an opinion. I just think he isn't good, and what he learned here he took to a crap team is disarray in Sacramento and did quite well with nothing expected of him while they lose more games.

My whole thing is that these players had personalities and skill not compatible with Spurs Basketball. Mainly Pops system. And this system no matter if we can't find a good backup point has won multiple titles. We are a team that stays in the shadow, and everybody knows we are there. Every team even to the minute I type this that plays in the NBA knows we will curb stomp their ass if they are not ready to play. So much so that this system will play any style of ball if we have to, and beat you at it. Even to the point of breaking you down throughout the game and snatching the air in your lungs in the last few minutes. Not one team can say the same in the last how many years now?

We are respected and damn good and always better than our own fans care to realize sometimes. All this under Pop and his way of taking a superstar and giving him the chance to become a legend. His way of coaching and achieving talent, even talent we didn't get to see play for us.

We pay the price for being small market and make the most of it. Our point guards over the years have done a better job than I expected and am content thus far and think Hill will have a bright future with us. And I sort of ranted myself, but I'm still a pimp.

[GSH]

Pop has also made it more clear than ever that they have 3 stars on the team, and everyone else has to fill a gap in the system. He's not looking for any skills in those positions, other than the ability and willingness to fill that gap. Think about it: Don Nelson will look at any group of 5 guys, figure out what he has, and fit them into a scheme. Pop's style is almost the exact opposite. A player who brings "something extra" doesn't add value, because something extra means something different. Pop will accept a guy with lesser (or aging) skills, if he believes that player executes the system more precisely. Under Pop, a backup PG is not a substitute star - they Spurs have exactly 3 of those.




This quote from the article about Bowen and Hill is exactly what I was talking about:

Bowen sees Hill's potential to affect games with his unique set of defensive gifts.

“I just hope he understands what he has, as far as his ability to affect the game at times with his length,” Bowen said of a perimeter player with the wingspan of a forward. “I hope he doesn't misconstrue why he is out there, and start doing things they're not looking for.”

You can bet that Bruce didn't just make that up, or mention it for no reason. That was a message.

[The Truth #6]

This quote from the article about Bowen and Hill is exactly what I was talking about:

Bowen sees Hill's potential to affect games with his unique set of defensive gifts.

“I just hope he understands what he has, as far as his ability to affect the game at times with his length,” Bowen said of a perimeter player with the wingspan of a forward. “I hope he doesn't misconstrue why he is out there, and start doing things they're not looking for.”

You can bet that Bruce didn't just make that up, or mention it for no reason. That was a message.

Yet Hill's minutes go down when he isn't scoring? Give or take some bad games, sure, but Hill has played solid D for the most part. It seems it's his poor offense that gets him in trouble.

He's taking a slow approach to being a PG by not trying to take risks on offense, while taking solid risks on D because he can back it up. One would think this would be the wise approach to take if one is looking for slow, steady improvement, i.e. pounding the rock. However, in doing so Hill seems to be penalized. I think it gets down to whether or not Pop will let Hill make mistakes.

As usual for the last few years, the early part of the season is/was the time to let players find themselves before the rotation gets tightened. What seems to be happening now is not so much a tightening of the rotation but a last second re-invention with the coaches playing the oldest players at every position just "because", which puts a greater burden, as always, on the Big 3, or for the moment, 2.

[coachmac87]

Ok I really think this thread is getting out of hand....Pop cant coach backup PG's???

Tony Parker should be on the floor for 35mpg. Period. You can say all you want about not finding a true back up pg...But same can be said for a Big next to TD. We can afford to plug in players here and there because TD and TP are the best players.

For one Hill is NOT a Pg. Dude is the PERFECT definition of a combo guard. He can guard multiple positions and has attributes of both positons. He will never be a true PG. You cant label him as a PG or SG..

Hill is a COMBO GUARD!!!

When will people realize this??? He is not going to be strictly TP back uP....

[coachmac87]

And people saying the Hill benching is due to lack of scoring...Its not "scoring"..Its aggressivness. Hill does not need to score to stay on the court. But he still needs to attack and play with confidence. If he is not going to play with confidence WHY THE FUCK should Pop keep him on the court?

If you lack confidence the opponent will see that and will force you to make plays....Which then things start to look bad.

[phyzik]

I Think TimVP is over-exagurating on this topic. Granted, we havnt had much success in the backup point position, but to say Pop cant coach a backup point is just wrong. I think its more along the lines of a backup point's ego cant accept the coaching that Pop provides.

Hill looks like he can accept it.


And I invented the term BAMA as the HOYA counterpart to describe Ghost Writer and his disciples.

Oh and HOYA won. We won. Three titles in five years. There was no need to trade Parker for Payton or Manu for Sprewell as BAMA wanted to do. The Spurs had the core pieces, they just needed to find the right surrounding role players ... like us HOYANS said.

Missions Accomplished.©

Apologies Accepted.

I think your straying from the path TimVP.

You dissapoint me.

[roycrikside]

re Timvp rant:

I'm reading what you're saying, and I usually rip Pop as much as the next guy, but I think this time you're panicking prematurely, for many reasons.

1) Like many people have already said, it's not like Hill was going to have a big role this playoffs anyway. Tony is in his prime and will probably play 38-42 minutes in close playoff games. Even if he was the backup point, Hill wouldn't get more than six or eight minutes, unless it was garbage time.

2) Once Manu and Gooden come back, the team is going to be really deep. How deep? Vaughn and Hairston will be wearing suits and Fab, our starting center the last time we won it all, will be the 12th man. Manu will be the 6th man, with Gooden and Thomas 7th and 8th and Bruce 9th. Hill's competing for the 10th man role with Udoka, and most good playoff teams don't play 10 guys very deep into the playoffs.

3) No matter how much Pop preaches defense, the '08-09 Spurs have been an offensive club, especially from the standpoint of jump shooting, whether it's threes or long twos. Who on the team has a shakier jumper than Hill? I trust Duncan and all the other bigs with a 17-footer more than I trust Hill from that distance. Bruce is the one guy who you can argue has a worse shot than Hill, but he only shoots from the corners, where he's pretty decent. I don't think Pop is gonna play anybody if they can't hit an open jumper.

4) You have to remember the whole Hill as point guard thing was kind of an experiment anyway. He was more of a shooting guard in college and Pop might think the team is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole there.

5) Just because he might not be in the rotation down the stretch, it doesn't mean Hill won't have a role. Pop could bring him in as a defense/energy guy the way he did against the Suns. He would still be guarding opposing points, but me more of a two on offense, dribbling it up and passing it to a play-making two (usually Manu, maybe Roger).

I agree it's kinda sad what Pop's doing to Hill, but I just don't think it's realistic to expect him to hand the keys of the offense to a rookie in a playoff game, even if it's for a minute or two. Those games are too important. I think your memory might be playing tricks on you. Even in '04-05, Beno's rookie year, when he was having a relatively decent playoffs til the Finals, it's not like Pop actually let him do anything. It was Manu's show when Beno was in there and Udrih was pretty much just a spot up shooter.

No matter who the backup point is, if Manu is going to play with him, he's not going to get to be the classic point, because when Tony rests, it's Manu's time to put up some shots and also be the playmaker. Hill struggles playing with Manu because he can't shoot as well as some others can.

[SpursFanNphx]

I remember Tony being treated the same way at the beginning of his career. I think Pop knows exactly what he is doing.

[wildbill2u]

Hill is a rookie who is trying to learn a new position, PG, which is the toughest position on the court. Not too surprising that Pop limits his minutes to situations where his limitations at that position-rookie inexperience, inability to finish at the rim, transition from SG to PG-don't overshadow his raw talents.

Unlike most of the backup guards TimVP listed, Pop has been willing at times to put Hill in to finish the game because of his defensive skills. I was amazed that he had enough confidence to put Hill against Nash, a deadly shooter, FT shooter, and MVP playmaker in the 4th the other night.

Clearly Pop was screwing around since he kept TD on the bench most of the 4th, but you wouldn't have seen NVE or Kerr or even Vaughn out there in that situation. I think POp sometimes goes into his mad scientist routine about the roster too much, but he obviously has something in his devious mind when he juggles the lineups so much and so weirdly. Mere mortals and most players simply can't figure his purpose out.

[xellos88330]

I think that Pop is just a bit of a perfectionist. I don't blame him considering his military background. If someone can't do the job when it is needed, you need to find someone who will or has the ability to do so.

[xellos88330]

I really am rooting for Hill though. I like point guards who can dunk. Makes me feel les short.

[benefactor]

After sleeping on this and thinking about it a little more, I think I am going to lean towards Pop feeling more comfortable going to his vets over him not wanting to develop Hill properly. Hill has made great strides both as a rookie and transitioning to the point, but there is always the question of how he will hold up to the pressure of the playoffs running the point as a rookie...especially as one still learning the finer points of the position.

I think Pop will use Hill in the playoffs, but in the same role as he played against the Suns. Hopefully it changes some on the offensive end and Pop will also take advantage of some of his playmaking ability instead of just sitting him in the corner.

[m33p0]

Pop is just being his usual crazy self.

[Fabbs]

For those using the rookie excuse, can we get some history input on what rookie point guards and/or backup point guards have been used successfully in the playoffs? Other positions?

For example who did Pat Riley use in his 5?
How about in Phil Jackson in his 4-1 assownings over *military tough* Pop?

[Fabbs]

Manu GNob, rookie 2003 Championship.

*I know he wasn't a point guard, just saying rookies can contribute to titles. :toast

[mathbzh]

Manu was not exactly the average inexperienced rookie.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Is "coaching backups PGs" an actual skill set that teams look for when hiring coaches? Who, exactly, is the best backup PG coacher in the NBA? Who is the best backup PG in the league?

Perhaps the reason some of these PGs perform well in other environments is because they require extended floor time to perform at that level....and as long as you're a backup PG, by definition, you will not get extended minutes. Guys that have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread (Beno, Jason Hart, Kerr, Stoudamire...) have had more success outside of San Antonio because they have/had a larger role in their other stops, and in most situations were starters on those teams. Beno (or any of these other guys) was never going to have the floor time or the freedom to excel here. It's also no coincidence that most of these guys who excel elsewhere, excel in environments where they don't have to worry about inconsequential things like winning basketball games.

[Dex]

Is "coaching backups PGs" an actual skill set that teams look for when hiring coaches? Who, exactly, is the best backup PG coacher in the NBA? Who is the best backup PG in the league?

Perhaps the reason some of these PGs perform well in other environments is because they require extended floor time to perform at that level....and as long as you're a backup PG, by definition, you will not get extended minutes. Guys that have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread (Beno, Jason Hart, Kerr, Stoudamire...) have had more success outside of San Antonio because they have/had a larger role in their other stops, and in most situations were starters on those teams. Beno (or any of these other guys) was never going to have the floor time or the freedom to excel here. It's also no coincidence that most of these guys who excel elsewhere, excel in environments where they don't have to worry about inconsequential things like winning basketball games.

I don't think it's a matter of just "coaching backup point gaurds," though. If anything, Pop is the one putting them in the position to fail.

I think one of the causes for this is also one of the Spurs strongest values: Tony Parker. Every time Parker takes the floor and takes over a game, this reaffirms to Pop that tough love makes great players. Pop is as responsible for making Tony an elite point guard as anybody, and I think he's tried taking that same approach with Speedy, and Beno, and now Hill.

The problem with this strategy is that Tony was the only player given the playing time to afford him this opportunity. Parker was thrust into the starting lineup early and since that point, has generally always known where his playing time was going to come, even when Pop was barking down his throat. That comfort, combined with incredible practice and talent by Tony, allowed him to blossom as we've all seen.

Now to the flip side of that equation...Look at guys like Udrih and Hill. They carry very much the same expectation, and I think Pop believes this is to their benefit. However, it's a vastly different situation if you're only getting 15 minutes to get a rhythm and show your best, and if those minutes could disappear at the drop of a dime to some veteran who knows how to run an offense.

That's a lot more pressure to succeed, with a much smaller sample rate and a lot slimmer margin for error. Whereas Parker got the chance to feel his way out and become a great player, many other point guards just get to see the bench, then the door. Pop either has to give these guys the time of the floor to figure out what to do, or handle them differently than he did Parker.

I agree with timvp that the only way Hill is going to get any better is if you let him learn from his mistakes. This is the time of his career to do so, and if we lose another gem in the rough because Pop is afraid to give him minutes, then it will one of the few times I've ever questioned the coach's judgment.

[I Love Me Some Me]

I don't think it's a matter of just "coaching backup point gaurds," though. If anything, Pop is the one putting them in the position to fail.

I think one of the causes for this is also one of the Spurs strongest values: Tony Parker. Every time Parker takes the floor and takes over a game, this reaffirms to Pop that tough love makes great players. Pop is as responsible for making Tony an elite point guard as anybody, and I think he's tried taking that same approach with Speedy, and Beno, and now Hill.

The problem with this strategy is that Tony was the only player given the playing time to afford him this opportunity. Parker was thrust into the starting lineup early and since that point, has generally always known where his playing time was going to come, even when Pop was barking down his throat. That comfort, combined with incredible practice and talent by Tony, allowed him to blossom as we've all seen.

Now to the flip side of that equation...Look at guys like Udrih and Hill. They carry very much the same expectation, and I think Pop believes this is to their benefit. However, it's a vastly different situation if you're only getting 15 minutes to get a rhythm and show your best, and if those minutes could disappear at the drop of a dime to some veteran who knows how to run an offense.

That's a lot more pressure to succeed, with a much smaller sample rate and a lot slimmer margin for error. Whereas Parker got the chance to feel his way out and become a great player, many other point guards just get to see the bench, then the door. Pop either has to give these guys the time of the floor to figure out what to do, or handle them differently than he did Parker.

I agree with timvp that the only way Hill is going to get any better is if you let him learn from his mistakes. This is the time of his career to do so, and if we lose another gem in the rough because Pop is afraid to give him minutes, then it will one of the few times I've ever questioned the coach's judgment.

How is he putting them in a position to fail? They are backups! All the PG has to do is go out there and not turn the ball over, run the offense, play sound defense...and do this for about 15 minutes a night.

Look, I want to see Hill on the floor more, but I'd much rather have a guy like Mason out there MORE if he meets the backup PG criteria. You can argue that Hill deserves more minutes, but who do you give fewer minutes to in exchange?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Is "coaching backups PGs" an actual skill set that teams look for when hiring coaches? Who, exactly, is the best backup PG coacher in the NBA? Who is the best backup PG in the league?

Perhaps the reason some of these PGs perform well in other environments is because they require extended floor time to perform at that level....and as long as you're a backup PG, by definition, you will not get extended minutes. Guys that have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread (Beno, Jason Hart, Kerr, Stoudamire...) have had more success outside of San Antonio because they have/had a larger role in their other stops, and in most situations were starters on those teams. Beno (or any of these other guys) was never going to have the floor time or the freedom to excel here. It's also no coincidence that most of these guys who excel elsewhere, excel in environments where they don't have to worry about inconsequential things like winning basketball games.

A very good point.

There are few players in the NBA who can go in a game at some point as reserves and get hot right away. Most players, especially young/rookies, need time to get in the flow. It's not the same thing to get in the game for 2/3 mins each quarter and to get a whole quarter to play. So far Hill hasn't shown he can spell Parker for short stretches and bring instant production even on the defensive end IMO, though most might disagree with the second notion. What he has shown is promise and that he can be counted on in specific situations.

I don't even think he's getting nearly the same tough love as Parker did, Pop's just trying things right now because Hill will probably not get any extended minutes in this year's playoffs. It's not about killing his confidence at all, it's about seeing what he's made of. Besides if he continues to develop he will be seeing significant minutes at the 2 spot in the future, not just as a backup PG. It's a fair argument that getting him force-fed minutes right now while he's still struggling, might destroy his confidence more than benching him and giving him time to get it together, because he'll be an important player for the Spurs for years to come, but not necessarily during this year's playoffs.I believe this way Pop takes a little pressure off of him.

Having said this, I fully expect him to regain his backup PG spot after Manu comes back, but it's a long shot to expect him to be consistent or an X-factor in the playoffs. One bad series destroyed everything Beno had as mental toughness. I'm not saying Hill is the same, quite the contrary, but it's not necessarily good to force feed him minutes while he's struggling.

[Dex]

How is he putting them in a position to fail? They are backups! All the PG has to do is go out there and not turn the ball over, run the offense, play sound defense...and do this for about 15 minutes a night.

Look, I want to see Hill on the floor more, but I'd much rather have a guy like Mason out there MORE if he meets the backup PG criteria. You can argue that Hill deserves more minutes, but who do you give fewer minutes to in exchange?

If you've got Ime Udoka out on the floor, then you've got time to find on the wing for George Hill. Same goes for playing Finley 28 mpg. And the more rest Tony can manage, the better.

I'll admit that I like Mason getting touches and shots, but there are ways to do that without playing him out of position. And without stifling the development of one of our more promising players. I wanna win now, too, but Spurs Basketball goes way beyond just this season.

[I Love Me Some Me]

If you've got Ime Udoka out on the floor, then you've got time to find on the wing for George Hill. Same goes for playing Finley 28 mpg. And the more rest Tony can manage, the better.

I'll admit that I like Mason getting touches and shots, but there are ways to do that without playing him out of position. And without stifling the development of one of our more promising players. I wanna win now, too, but Spurs Basketball goes way beyond just this season.

If you don't want people to play out of position, why would you advocate playing Hill in place of Finley, Udoka, or anyone not named Tony Parker for that matter? If he's a PG, then that's where he should get his minutes and he should get them by being better than Tony Parker. If he's not a PG, this thread is meaningless since it's about coaching PGs. If he's a combo guard, then call him that...but then so is Roger Mason who I'd rather have on the floor over Hill.

[Fabbs]

Manu was not exactly the average inexperienced rookie.
How about Sam Cassell?


For those using the rookie excuse, can we get some history input on what rookie point guards and/or backup point guards have been used successfully in the playoffs? Other positions?

For example who did Pat Riley use in his 5?
How about in Phil Jackson in his 4-1 assownings over *military tough* Pop?
How about Sam Cassell again in 2008?

[MarHill]

For those using the rookie excuse, can we get some history input on what rookie point guards and/or backup point guards have been used successfully in the playoffs? Other positions?

For example who did Pat Riley use in his 5?
How about in Phil Jackson in his 4-1 assownings over *military tough* Pop?

I believe that statistic between Pop and Phil is misleading. Because the Lakers were not good between 2005-2007 and the Spurs were at their best. If the Lakers would have played the Spurs during those seasons in the playoffs...Spurs would have clearly won and that record would have been closer.

[Dex]

If you don't want people to play out of position, why would you advocate playing Hill in place of Finley, Udoka, or anyone not named Tony Parker for that matter? If he's a PG, then that's where he should get his minutes and he should get them by being better than Tony Parker. If he's not a PG, this thread is meaningless since it's about coaching PGs. If he's a combo guard, then call him that...but then so is Roger Mason who I'd rather have on the floor over Hill.

If he was better than Tony Parker, he'd be the starter. Nobody is expecting that.

What I'm advocating is letting him play at his natural position, which allows everyone else to stick to theirs. When Pop switches Mason to point, that forces guys like Udoka or Finley to step into the two, where they can easily be torched by the faster shooting guards.

If you are able to confidently insert Hill, Mason can stay at his two spot, and Finley/Bowen/Udoka can do what they're gonna do at the three. Since the ball-handling responsibilities are often distributed among the guards anyway (especially when you have handlers like Manu or Mason), I don't even mind seeing him on the floor with Tony, as they can switch off playing the point.

The point still remains that Hill isn't going to get better without playing.

[bigdog]

Hill MUST be able to play the PG position, if they want him to play that position behind Tony. Hill isn't actually that bad of a PG, but I don't see why Pop plays Mason ahead of him. I think Hill will actually have an important role in the playoffs because of his defense. His offense will come around eventually, but Pop needs to let Hill have the ball in his hands and run the offense. This Mason shit isn't working. He can't drive, he has bad handles, and turns the ball over on occasion.

Come on Pop, let the rookie make his mistakes and learn from them. It's the only way he's going to get better.

[ploto]

I remember Tony being treated the same way at the beginning of his career. I think Pop knows exactly what he is doing.

Tony never got DNP's. If he wasn't hurt, he was given his opportunity every game.

[EJK5032]

GHill has already played quite a bit this season as the backup Point, as much as can be expected when you are backing up one of the best PGs in the NBA. But we are now past the "learning" segment of the season........it is time to get ready for the playoffs.

Pop will be shortening the rotation and figuring out each player's niche. GHill's niche for the playoffs is going to be primarily as a defensive stopper. GHill has great potential at the point, but right now he is too sloppy with the ball at times - one handed passes, weak post entries, etc., and with defensive pressure turned up in the playoffs, he may be turnover prone, which you can't risk. This is where Mason's experience wins out.

On the other hand, when GHill is at the point, he runs the offense and we get more ball movement. When Mason is at the point, he seems to be looking to score first, which is not always bad, but sometimes he forces it. Also, playing GHill on the wing some will hopefully help get him out of his offensive funk, because sometimes when GHill is at the point, he is too passive, rarely looking for his own shot, especially as far as using his athleticism to get into the paint.

This switch of Mason to the 1 and GHill to the 2 could be good to help round out the skills of both players. But primarily it comes down to a trust factor: right now Pop trusts Mason more than Hill. Remember, Pop didn't trust Parker for a long time either.

[Pero]

Pop doesn't put up with mental midgets, just ask Beno, Hedo etc. How many rings did those guys win after leaving the Spurs? How many did the Spurs win after they left?

LOL, the Spurs won 2 in 3 seasons while Beno was here and 1 in 3 seasons while he's gone. So you might want to rethink that argument (which is funny anyway, it's not like these guys were superstars). :rollin

[Spurs Brazil]

Hill isn't scoring enough, yet, to be a productive offensive threat. So, Pop has been using George for defense lately and then on offense... pairing him with a scorer in the backcourt (Parker or Mason) in order to hold leads. I think Pop wants perfection and that puts pressure on players trying to learn to play on this team. Sometimes it sterilizes and lobotomizes but he wants them to become hardened...to become strong men. He likes players to figure out where they can be productive and in what situations.

So now, George finds himself watching Parker while Jacque Vaughn whispers in his ear and his coach, well...he doesn't exactly whisper.

There is a stark contrast in the way Beno Udrih and George Hill have handled the same "assignment" from Gregg Popovich. That assignment: pick up the opposing ball-handler in a 40 defense (full-court) and make them waste clock, bother them, make them uncomfortable.

Beno was a reluctant defender and basically played a 30 defense...picking up his man at 3/4 court. It infuriated Pop.

George has been different in that, like Parker and Jacque Vaughn and Avery Johnson, he will pressure the ball when he is asked to do so. His pressure on Steve Nash was exactly what Pop asked him to do.

George may make it through Pop's meat-grinder....if he learns how to finish off a dribble-drive. Pop's guards must defend first, then score. They have to figure it out or get blown out the tailpipe. That's just the way it is.

:tu

great analysis Solid D

[rogcl1]

I don't think it's a matter of just "coaching backup point gaurds," though. If anything, Pop is the one putting them in the position to fail.

I think one of the causes for this is also one of the Spurs strongest values: Tony Parker. Every time Parker takes the floor and takes over a game, this reaffirms to Pop that tough love makes great players. Pop is as responsible for making Tony an elite point guard as anybody, and I think he's tried taking that same approach with Speedy, and Beno, and now Hill.

The problem with this strategy is that Tony was the only player given the playing time to afford him this opportunity. Parker was thrust into the starting lineup early and since that point, has generally always known where his playing time was going to come, even when Pop was barking down his throat. That comfort, combined with incredible practice and talent by Tony, allowed him to blossom as we've all seen.

Now to the flip side of that equation...Look at guys like Udrih and Hill. They carry very much the same expectation, and I think Pop believes this is to their benefit. However, it's a vastly different situation if you're only getting 15 minutes to get a rhythm and show your best, and if those minutes could disappear at the drop of a dime to some veteran who knows how to run an offense.

That's a lot more pressure to succeed, with a much smaller sample rate and a lot slimmer margin for error. Whereas Parker got the chance to feel his way out and become a great player, many other point guards just get to see the bench, then the door. Pop either has to give these guys the time of the floor to figure out what to do, or handle them differently than he did Parker.

I agree with timvp that the only way Hill is going to get any better is if you let him learn from his mistakes. This is the time of his career to do so, and if we lose another gem in the rough because Pop is afraid to give him minutes, then it will one of the few times I've ever questioned the coach's judgment.


And what gem in the rough back up point guards have the Spurs lost because as some in this thread percieve that Pop can't coach them?
Beno?

[Obstructed_View]

Tony never got DNP's. If he wasn't hurt, he was given his opportunity every game.

Very true. He was never pulled from a game for making mistakes, and Manu's mistakes were tolerated with an exasperated look and a wisecrack.

[timmehMVP]

Grat post. Roger Mason was set to be the backup point guard, trust me George Hill won't go down because of his superior defense and his young, athletic legs. I think what Pop is trying to do is make him a 2 guard in the rotation for now. Let's face it, when manu come back, would he like a 2nd string of Pg - Mason, Sg - Udoka, Sf - Bowen, Pf - Thomas, C - Gooden or a lineup of Pg - Mason, Sg - Hill, Sf - Bowen, Pf - Thomas, C - Gooden. I think that Pop would like the latter because of the versatility that hill brings to the backcourt. I think Pop would start to develop Hill's point skills in the summer when he will surely be on the Spurs' summer league roster. I am worried about Hill too, but i have faith in Pop that he'll also have faith in Hill. He's a very promising young rookie.

[Spurs Brazil]

Do you think it's time to go back to Hill?

Mason as a PG is good for his shooting of screens but the last 3 or 4 games teams adjusted and he's not having many open looks.

His ball handling tonight remind me Beno in 05 Finals.

[Spursmania]

Do you think it's time to go back to Hill?

Mason as a PG is good for his shooting of screens but the last 3 or 4 games teams adjusted and he's not having many open looks.

His ball handling tonight remind me Beno in 05 Finals.

Yep, his ball handling sucked.

[benefactor]

It's hard to know what to do. Honestly...Vaughn looks better than either of them right now.

[Spurs Brazil]

Spurs scored 13pts in the 2nd and 4th quarter. At the beginning of those Mason was the PG. Our offense stopped and we never regained the rhythm.
We scored 29 and 21 in the 1st and 3rd

[Brazil]

Mase at back up PG is not a good option it works once in a while but he doesn't how to do that

[timvp]

I would complain about Pop's coaching of the backup point guard but I have no idea who the hell the backup point guard is at the moment :shootme

[ulosturedge]

It sounds like alot of ppl have the idea that Pop is being harsh on Hill. Even though Pop is known to be somewhat demanding when developing players I don't think he is doing that with Hill. I think its the exact opposite. I think he is taking it slow on Hills development is why he is not getting alot of minutes. I think he realizes that Hill is very young and there is no reason to push him as he has plenty of basketball years ahead of him. I mean its been awhile since he's had any young players. Alot of the players are literally prehistoric in comparison to Hill, and I just think Pop sees things differently this time around. There was no one to fall back on when Parker came in to be our starting PG. Either Parker learns quick or the team is tanked. We know how it turned out though. But in this case Pop has Parker so there is no need for Pop to try and transform Hill into a superstar overnight. I think Pop has chilled out a bit honestly. He said himself he was playing Hill at the SG position alot just to give him some familiarity. Hoping to put Hill more at ease and let him play how he is use to playing. With this hopefully he will get his natural stroke back that he had in college. I'm sure he wants Hills game to be just like Parkers. But he needs to get his stroke going before he can look to set anyone else up. As it is right now him thinking he has to set up his teamates first is also making him very passive offensively at the same time. I don't think Pop wants that.

[polandprzem]

I would complain about Pop's coaching of the backup point guard but I have no idea who the hell the backup point guard is at the moment :shootme
Are you in need to have a backup poing guard?

maybe it's better that more then one player takes the responsibilietes og running a point?

[timvp]

Dear Pop,

For the love of all that is holy, please stop playing Mason as the backup point guard. You have single-handedly morphed Mason from a fan favorite into a worse version of Beno Udrih. I realize that you cannot coach backup point guards but please don't ruin what has been a very good season for Mason. For the Spurs to win a championship, you will need Mason to produce. Destroying his confidence like you have every other backup point in the last dozen years is not the way to ensure that he will be able to survive the pressure of the playoffs. I know some will tell you that it's all one giant coincidence that point guards start sucking when they come to the Spurs and that you are blameless, but believe you me, some of us haven't turned a blind eye to your coaching weaknesses.

Re-instate George Hill as the backup. If you don't like that idea, then I guess you can dust off Jacque Vaughn. But, whatever you do, don't destroy Mason any further. Since your lineup tinkering, I've grown to despise Mason ever touching the ball. That is not a good thing. Pretty soon, Mason is going to curl up into the fetal position and succumb to your backup-point-guard-confidence-destroying ways.

Change.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

An Anonymous Spurs Fan

[Blackjack]

Dear Pop,

For the love of all that is holy, please stop playing Mason as the backup point guard. You have single-handedly morphed Mason from a fan favorite into a worse version of Beno Udrih. I realize that you cannot coach backup point guards but please don't ruin what has been a very good season for Mason. For the Spurs to win a championship, you will need Mason to produce. Destroying his confidence like you have every other backup point in the last dozen years is not the way to ensure that he will be able to survive the pressure of the playoffs. I know some will tell you that it's all one giant coincidence that point guards start sucking when they come to the Spurs and that you are blameless, but believe you me, some of us haven't turned a blind eye to your coaching weaknesses.

Re-instate George Hill as the backup. If you don't like that idea, then I guess you can dust off Jacque Vaughn. But, whatever you do, don't destroy Mason any further. Since your lineup tinkering, I've grown to despise Mason ever touching the ball. That is not a good thing. Pretty soon, Mason is going to curl up into the fetal position and succumb to your backup-point-guard-confidence-destroying ways.

Change.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

An Anonymous Spurs Fan

Petition?

Where do I sign?

Anonymous Spurs fan.:smokin

[polandprzem]

Didn't it started all good for mason when he was running a point?

He was having the ball more and he felt it good.
And Hill is playing better off the SG position.

But recently it looks bad. But what isn't? Spurs offense is really I mean really bad right now.

And there is still a possibility that when Manu will be back he will take backup responsibilieties, moving mason to the SG. Then the experience of running the point by Mason will give a better result. In a meaning that opponents will have to figure out mason once more and Mason on the floor will be more confident with the ball.

[timvp]

Didn't it started all good for mason when he was running a point?It almost always starts off well. Even massive failures like Van Exel, Ward and Stoudamire started off well. Heck, Beno's best basketball he ever played for the Spurs was at the beginning of his rookie season.

[whottt]

I agree that Pop destroys the confidence of bench players in some cases...then again, some of them finally figure it out after 4 or 5 years and learn to cope.



In this case though, I am not worried in the slightest...there's something about the way George Hill carries himself that let's me know nothing really fazes him. He's genuinely confident and Pop won't destroy him. No worries with hill...very few players just walk onto an NBA court and are good at playing PG.


I don't know if it's an arrogance or what...but he's very similar to Tony Parker in his attitude. I actually think he's more confident than Parker....Parker was just fortunate to be in the position of Pop being forced to play him his rookie year.


Do not worry about George Hill. He's going to be a good player for the Spurs.

[polandprzem]

It almost always starts off well. Even massive failures like Van Exel, Ward and Stoudamire started off well. Heck, Beno's best basketball he ever played for the Spurs was at the beginning of his rookie season.

They all did start well?

I think there was too much hype on some of them.



And I see your point ... ehh

[timvp]

In this case though, I am not worried in the slightest...there's something about the way George Hill carries himself that let's me know nothing really fazes him. He's genuinely confident and Pop won't destroy him. No worries with hill...very few players just walk onto an NBA court and are good at playing PG.The problem is that Hill isn't the backup point guard. Pop, for whatever lame reasons, decided to take that title away from Hill.

[ata]

Haven't read it all, neverthelees, here my 0.02$
Pop is not able to coach young players, after all, his mentor was Larry Brown (see Milicic).
Only exception to this rule is Tony Parker (Tim Duncan is class of his own) and even with TP, there was some fluke - Jason Kidd didn't sign with Spurs. Where would Tony be, if Spurs could have landed Kidd rests for speculations.
Fluke was also, that TP responded well to Pop's chewing - there is not a lot of players with such character.


Even for Pop stands: nobody is perfect.

[Blackjack]

It almost always starts off well. Even massive failures like Van Exel, Ward and Stoudamire started off well. Heck, Beno's best basketball he ever played for the Spurs was at the beginning of his rookie season.

Van Exel had a couple of flashes, but hardly started well if IIRC. The guy, like I mentioned in another thread, was a scoring point-guard with a jacked-up elbow, who also happened to be a defensive-liability. Not much of a recipe for success.

Ward was among the league leaders in 3-point shooting before he was bought-out and signed by the Spurs, only to come here and completely go into the tank. I'm pretty sure that didn't start too well either, but it would definitely lend credence to your theory of Pop neutering point-guards.

As for Stoudamire, I remember him having a solid shooting outing in his debut against Indiana, and playing decent in a game or two after, but nothing much more than that. He was just another aging "point-guard" they took a flier on after another mid-season buy-out, and like Ward before him, it just didn't pan-out.

I definitely think you're on to something with Pop's inability to bring the best out of players offensively, I'd just think that you'd be wrong to limit it only to point-guards.

[Allanon]

I'm guessing that Pop is trying to make Mason play PG because of Manu. When Manu comes back, Mason loses major minutes at SG unless he splits time with Tony & Manu.

Finley/Bowen/Ime take up all the minutes at SF.

Pop had to choose between developing Mason and Hill, he chose Mason for the floor spacing.

I suspect when Manu comes back, Hill's not going to see much PT.

With the Playoffs coming, I don't see Pop changing his rotation for a roookie. Hill is going to have to wait until next year.

[timvp]

Pop is not able to coach young playersDisagree. Pop has gotten good play out of a number of young players. He won a championship in 2003 with basically two rookies at shooting guard (SJax and Manu) plus Bowen and Claxton only had a few years of NBA experience. He found Malik Rose and turned him into a very rich basketball player. When given a quality young player who isn't a backup point guard, Pop has usually done a good job.

Almost every fan of every team in the NBA says that their coach isn't fair to young players. I actually think Pop is one of the best coaches in the league at coaching young players. Look at this year for another example. Mason is in his first full year of playing in the NBA and Pop had him playing well ... until he put him at backup point guard.

[Dex]

Dear Pop,

For the love of all that is holy, please stop playing Mason as the backup point guard. You have single-handedly morphed Mason from a fan favorite into a worse version of Beno Udrih. I realize that you cannot coach backup point guards but please don't ruin what has been a very good season for Mason. For the Spurs to win a championship, you will need Mason to produce. Destroying his confidence like you have every other backup point in the last dozen years is not the way to ensure that he will be able to survive the pressure of the playoffs. I know some will tell you that it's all one giant coincidence that point guards start sucking when they come to the Spurs and that you are blameless, but believe you me, some of us haven't turned a blind eye to your coaching weaknesses.

Re-instate George Hill as the backup. If you don't like that idea, then I guess you can dust off Jacque Vaughn. But, whatever you do, don't destroy Mason any further. Since your lineup tinkering, I've grown to despise Mason ever touching the ball. That is not a good thing. Pretty soon, Mason is going to curl up into the fetal position and succumb to your backup-point-guard-confidence-destroying ways.

Change.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

An Anonymous Spurs Fan

We need to keep bumping this until someone in the FO sees it.

Someone link this on Fab's twitter.

[timvp]

Van Exel had a couple of flashes, but hardly started well if IIRC. In his first 15 games with the Spurs, NVE shot 46.3% from the field and was averaging 6.7 points in 16 minutes per game. The Spurs were 12-3 and all the coaches could talk about was how NVE was a better defender and a better teammate than they could have imagined. NVE was at cult hero status amongst Spurs fans.


Ward was among the league leaders in 3-point shooting before he was bought-out and signed by the Spurs, only to come here and completely go into the tank. I'm pretty sure that didn't start too well eitherWard started off really well. First eight games, he shot 45.5% from the field. On his first road trip with the team, he hit 9-of-13 three-pointers. By the end of the road trip, Pop was having him play in fourth quarters over Tony Parker. The most memorable of which was that Pistons game where Ward almost single-handedly brought the Spurs back to win the game.

After that game, there was even some articles questioning whether there was a quarterback controversy in San Antonio.


As for Stoudamire, I remember him having a solid shooting outing in his debut against Indiana, and playing decent in a game or two after, but nothing much more than that. He was just another aging "point-guard" they took a flier on after another mid-season buy-out, and like Ward before him, it just didn't pan-out.Stoudamire was playing pretty darn well until Pop gave him the speech about shooting more and passing less ... and then yanked him in and out for shooting too much. At that point Stoudamire went from being an asset to being perhaps the worst player in the NBA.

Everyone remembers how Pop's back up point guards ultimately flame out but their good starts are forgotten.


I'd just think that you'd be wrong to limit it only to point-guards. Pop has a good track record of coaching young players and bench players at every position, except backup point guards.

[picnroll]

The problem is that Hill isn't the backup point guard. Pop, for whatever lame reasons, decided to take that title away from Hill.
Pop didn't take the PG title away from Hill. Hill gave it away. That is unless you define PG as someone who brings the ball up he court and immediately passes it away to another player as fast as possible, usually to Manu or Mason, and then retreats to the nearest corner out of harm or responsibilities way.

[timvp]

Pop didn't take the PG title away from Hill. Hill gave it away. That is unless you define PG as someone who brings the ball up he court and immediately passes it away to another player as fast as possible, usually to Manu or Mason, and then retreats to the nearest corner out of harm or responsibilities way.Even when Hill was passive offensively, he was giving the Spurs their best backup point guard minutes they've had in a long while. The fact that he could defend, rebound, handle the ball against pressure and get to the free throw line at a high clip made him valuable.

[Dex]

Pop didn't take the PG title away from Hill. Hill gave it away. That is unless you define PG as someone who brings the ball up he court and immediately passes it away to another player as fast as possible, usually to Manu or Mason, and then retreats to the nearest corner out of harm or responsibilities way.

Another thing I've noticed about Hill is his ability to dribble to ball without really doing anything with it. He'll roam around the perimeter, cut through high post, even occasionally gets into the lane, just to dump the ball of for somebody to create a shot, instead of putting them in a scoring position.

And when he is showing enough aggression to drive into the paint, he definitely hasn't learned the art of passing back out. And his finishing skills ain't nothing to write home about, either.

Hill definitely isn't making a great case for himself, but I think timvp's point is that if Hill is going to hit the wall, don't drag RMJ down with him. We need ONE of those new players to be an asset come playoff time.

[picnroll]

Even when Hill was passive offensively, he was giving the Spurs their best backup point guard minutes they've had in a long while. The fact that he could defend, rebound, handle the ball against pressure and get to the free throw line at a high clip made him valuable.

I'll agree with defend, rebound, handle the ball against the press. Early on he got to the free throw line but that fell off. Problem is that he can't do much as a PG in the half court. Without Manu only Parker is breaking down the defense and creating shots. Not even Duncan, who most teams have played man up without doubling now, is being too effective creating looks for others. So Pop went to Mason and it hasn't worked but Hill isn't a solution either. Only hope is an effective Manu and even better an effective Manu and Duncan. You can't afford Hill as your PG without someone else on the floor creating.

[timvp]

I'll agree with defend, rebound, handle the ball against the press. Early on he got to the free throw line but that fell off. Problem is that he can't do much as a PG in the half court. Without Manu only Parker is breaking down the defense and creating shots. Not even Duncan, who most teams have played man up without doubling now, is being too effective creating looks for others. So Pop went to Mason and it hasn't worked but Hill isn't a solution either. Only hope is an effective Manu and even better an effective Manu and Duncan. You can't afford Hill as your PG without someone else on the floor creating.In his last ~20 games as the backup, he was still getting to the line about 3.5 times per 40 minutes. That's less than his numbers earlier in the year but still a very healthy mark. By far the best on the team outside of the Big Three.

I agree that Hill was becoming very passive at the end of his stint at point guard but I saw enough glimpses earlier to believe that he could eventually figure it out. And if you remember correctly, Hill started playing passive once Ginobili returned from injury. Prior to that he was doing a very good job of breaking down defenses off of pick-and-rolls and in half break situations.

It's when he started trying to fit in that he ran into problems. There wasn't much help next to him during that string of 20+ point games.

[picnroll]

I just don't see it. Maybe in the future but I don't see change of speed or direction, quick first step, finishing at the basket, pull up J, drawing a second defender. He's weak running the P&R. Maybe someday, but not today

[timvp]

I just don't see it. Maybe in the future but I don't see change of speed or direction, quick first step, finishing at the basket, pull up J, drawing a second defender. He's weak running the P&R. Maybe someday, but not todayI coulda sworn you were high on Hill just a few months ago.





Edit to add:


I think Chalmers should make it in the league as a solid back up PG on a good team or a starting PG on a bad team. Hill however should make it as a starting PG on good team. Spurs got s steal, right Mr Body?


Hill looks incredibly confident. He's directing the team as a PG like he's a seasoned vet. Spurs struck late round gold number 3.


Hill is fully capable of being a PG/SG in a three man rotation particularly as he has a frame to get a heckuva lot stronger. Ultimately he can easily get 30 minutes in a Spurs rotation and is immeasurable versatility as a defender. Spurs made a smart choice and right now or soon fans would be cursing the FO if theey'd let Hill slip and he was picked by Boston or LA as was rumored. Right now potential wise Hill leads the pack of available players at their draft position.


Seems to me someone mentioned it before but body-wise, athleticism, skills potential he reminds me of Fat Lever and that ain't bad.

Has Hill really dropped that much in your opinion in a few months? From future starting stud comparable to TP and Manu ... to a player who doesn't even deserve a chance as the backup point guard?

IMO, you shot a little high in your initial praise and are shooting low in your current pessimism. The whole season, I've seen Hill as a solid point guard prospect who can eventually become one of the best backup points in the league. But considering that he's coming from a low level of basketball and is changing position, there were rough patches he was going to have to cross. I was hoping Pop would be patient ... but that didn't happen.

Hill won't become an All-Star but as a point guard, the fact that he has elite defensive potential, can handle the rock, has the tools to develop into a shooter and has enough athleticism to finish around the basket tells me it's way too early to give up on him. He doesn't have great vision but he makes quick, smart passes most of the time.

And really, Hill's problems throughout the season have almost all dealt with passiveness and not a lack of talent. The only way to get that passiveness out of his game is through experience so he can find his niche again. When he was forced into a niche earlier in the season, he did very well ... as you noted.

[Dario]

This mason and hill debate reminds me of some very old terrence hill and bud spencer movie, where they would drive that gold cadilac.:)
/Offtopic

[picnroll]

I coulda sworn you were high on Hill just a few months ago.


I still have hopes for Hill. He can be solid simply by improving his shooting with the tools he has now if he's paired on the floor with a Parker or Manu and a healthy Duncan who can create for him and others. He cannot be a PG if somebody, preferably two oher people aren't on the floor creating easy shots or scoring themselves at a high clip.

He has disappointed me in his ability to create for others which is bottom 10 percentile for PGs or SGs for that matter imo. He can improve in that area maybe but he needs to become more deceptive handling the ball to break down the defense, become a better shooter and become a helluva lot better around the basket. Right now he's a block magnet.

[Manufan909]

I guess picknroll agrees with me, but to timvp, do you believe Hill will go back to backup PG once Manu is back? No need for Mason to be taking shots from both of the Spurs top guards.

[polandprzem]

I don't know why but this thread is pissing me off :cuss:

[Manufan909]

I don't know why but this thread is pissing me off :cuss:

Well let's figure this out. Is it 1) You hate anyone bagging on the almighty Pop? 2) Anything reminding you that Mason is now the starting SG AND the backup PG? 3) I got nothing. If it's neither of the first two, then you're on your own.

[polandprzem]

That's number 3

I'm on my own :)

[Manufan909]

Oh I have another one, is it cuz JV isn't backing Tony up? And I know I'm reaching with this one. But I'm so bored I want to find out.

[Obstructed_View]

If Pop wants a vet running backup point, and he doesn't want to go to Vaughn, then he needs to use Udoka. At this point he's going to have Parker so worn out by the playoffs that it won't matter if Duncan and Manu are 100 percent.

[WalterBenitez]

Watching George Hill come in and play dominant defense against the Suns was great to see. But the circumstances had me pissed at Pop. If the Steve Nash wouldn't have gotten hot, Hill was headed to a DNP-CD. Pop looks like he's on the road to, once again, destroying the confidence and the effectiveness of the team's backup point guard.

I understand wanting to give Mason the ball more often. I agree that he needs more touches than he's gotten in the previous six weeks. But that is doable with him at the shooting guard position. There's no reason to play him at point to get him touches. Just let Mason run pick-and-rolls in the half court set ... especially since that's what he ends up doing when he plays point.

With Mason at point, Pop is setting it up so that Hill will be out of the rotation once Ginobili returns. I just don't agree with that. Hill brings too much to the table. Sure he has some warts but an athlete who can rebound, concentrate on defense and play unselfish basketball should fit perfectly into the system of Spurs Basketball.

Basically, the only two point guards to survive Pop's point guard treatment over the years have been AJ and Parker. Both players survived because they were supremely confident in their own abilities. Every other point guard was murdered by Pop.

Kerr came in as a high profile reserve point guard fresh off of three championships and he was utterly useless in his first stint under Pop. Antonio Daniels wilted under Pop before going on to become one of the best backup point guards of the last decade. Speedy Claxton is remembered for his Game 6 against the Nets performance but he had many downs as ups in his Spurs career.

Terry Porter came to the Spurs as a premier backup point guard and instantly turned into a liability. Charlie Ward, Nick Van Exel and Damon Stoudamire came to the Spurs playing decent basketball but Pop swiftly ended their careers. Last year with Stoudamire was amazing. After playing well and helping out the first few games, Pop told Stoudamire to stop passing so much and start shooting more. The result? Pop benched Stoudamire for becoming a chucker.

Then there's the lovable Beno Udrih. No doubt he's not the easiest player to root for but he was talented and had more than enough ability to be a backup point guard. But Pop chewed him up and spit him out like all the others.

Now it looks like Hill is about to go down that road. Pop has already taken away his ballhandling responsibilities. His minutes are about to evaporate. Then comes the part where Pop is surprised when the backup point guard doesn't play with supreme confidence when he suddenly finds himself back in the mix. And then the story ends with the backup point guard getting traded for pennies on the dollar as the Spurs welcome in the next poor sap who's about to get eaten alive by Pop's inability to coach backup point guards.

I think the main problem is Pop doesn't know what he wants from a backup point. He'll bench a backup point for playing bad defense but he'll also bench a backup point for playing good defense but not being aggressive enough offensively. It's like he doesn't realize that all backup point guards have some sort of flaws. That's why they are backup point guards.

This latest giving up on Hill just doesn't make much sense. When it comes down to it, the move will basically be taking any minutes Hill would get and give them to Finley.

Good luck to Hill and hopefully he can persevere and keep the job the next time he's given the chance.

/rant

Interesting, you got a point right here, short guess, probably POP measure subs with the TP's standards which is obvious so high for everyone.

In the other hand, running this team with so many plays to remember arent easy.

I agree that giving minutes to Hill will develop him or send him out, but we should let him tests his skills.

[WalterBenitez]

According to NBA.com stats

TP is 6.8 (APG) .86 (SPG) 2.61 (TO) 21.4 (PPG) in 34.1 (MPG)
GH is 2.0 (APG) .58 (SPG) 1.04 (TO) 6.2 (PPG) in 17.7 (MPG)

I will go against my own word :p: saying that 17.7 MPG sounds like POP is developing Hill, some other maths....

TP is 6.8 APG in 34.1 MPG and GH is 2.0 in 17.7
TP is .86 SPG and 2.61 TO and GH is .58 and 1.04

Looks like POP is managing GH well :bang nto good enough

[Blackjack]

In his first 15 games with the Spurs, NVE shot 46.3% from the field and was averaging 6.7 points in 16 minutes per game. The Spurs were 12-3 and all the coaches could talk about was how NVE was a better defender and a better teammate than they could have imagined. NVE was at cult hero status amongst Spurs fans.

That's better than I remembered, but it was pretty much fool's gold, offensively, with the condition of his elbow. I do remember the coaching staff going out of their way to praise his attitude and the effort he was putting forth on the defensive-end, though.


Ward started off really well. First eight games, he shot 45.5% from the field. On his first road trip with the team, he hit 9-of-13 three-pointers. By the end of the road trip, Pop was having him play in fourth quarters over Tony Parker. The most memorable of which was that Pistons game where Ward almost single-handedly brought the Spurs back to win the game.

After that game, there was even some articles questioning whether there was a quarterback controversy in San Antonio.

I had high hopes for Ward when he came to S.A., he seemed to be exactly what the Spurs needed in a backup-point (knockdown 3-point shooting, capable defender, and a competent point overall) but Pop definitely seemed hell-bent on not letting that happen. His shooting to start his Spurs stint was better than I remembered, but I definitely remembered him getting banished to the bench and not given the opportunity to play through mistakes.

The fact that he had some success to start his Spurs stint, when Pop allowed for him to acclimate before "coacing him up", and then went into the tank after being "coached-up", definitely lends credence to your theory.

I do remember that Detroit game and the "quarterback controversy" articles, now that you mention it.:lol :toast


Stoudamire was playing pretty darn well until Pop gave him the speech about shooting more and passing less ... and then yanked him in and out for shooting too much. At that point Stoudamire went from being an asset to being perhaps the worst player in the NBA.

Everyone remembers how Pop's back up point guards ultimately flame out but their good starts are forgotten.

I don't disagree with you on how the Stoudamire experiment went, but my hopes were never that high considering his lack of size, age, and the fact that he was aquired mid-season.(Point-guard's hard enough. Learning how to play it for L.B. or Pop mid-season? You'd have a better chance at finding a solution to the country's economic situation.)


Pop has a good track record of coaching young players and bench players at every position, except backup point guards.

I think Pop does a good job of finding players that's strength's mesh with team needs, but not necessarily developing offensive players. I wasn't really reffering to young players, either. (But I wouldn't give him too much credit for a 26yr.old pro in Manu or the Jack's of the world, at least offensively, who have the confidence/swagger to put the ball in the hole whether they're playing in S.A. or on Mars.)

Pop's a counter-puncher with a bend-but-not-break mentality, that while breeds consistency on the defensive-end by playing percentages, it also bleeds into the offensive-end negatively.

It's like any good counter-puncher in boxing.

He'll always be in the fight, but he'll rarely get the knock-out.

Pop's style was plenty successful and completely understandable given the offensive talent surrounding Tim pre-2005, but time's/talent have changed, which is something even Pop has come to terms with.

I think it really started to hit him in '04 with Hedo and '05 with Barry, that his reigns were becoming more of a detriment on the offense than a governor, thus, the noticeable change in rhetoric, "Shoot the damn ball." But until recently, with the likes of a Bonner, has his rhetoric and his actions actually coincided.

You can't de-program and remove hesitance (maybe the worst thing to have offensively) over night, or with rhetoric alone, but at least Pop seems to be making some progress in that area.

The one thing that I've always begrudgedly admired about P. Jackson, is his use of the triangle and willingness to let his team play through mistakes. Not bailing his team out with a timeout, when it seems all is going to hell.

The triangle provides a more consistent and predictable offense, as to where every offensive player's shots are going to come from, allowing for better continuity and rhythm,(especially for role-players) and the not getting bailed-out breeds confidence and pays dividends down the road, when the games really count. Yes, he's had plenty of talent to work with over the years, but his teams are usually among the most consistent offenses, and among the most balanced both offensively and defensively, year-in and year-out.

I don't expect Pop to start picking Phil's brain (unless we're talking, literally:smokin) but he could definitely learn a thig or two from him offensively.

Pop's come a hell of a long way, especially x's and o's-wise over the years, but he's still got a little ways to go.

[Yuixafun]

good points on pops coaching - and nice to remind people even at an advanced age you have opportunity to grow..

[Yogurt210]

That's better than I remembered, but it was pretty much fool's gold, offensively, with the condition of his elbow. I do remember the coaching staff going out of their way to praise his attitude and the effort he was putting forth on the defensive-end, though.



I had high hopes for Ward when he came to S.A., he seemed to be exactly what the Spurs needed in a backup-point (knockdown 3-point shooting, capable defender, and a competent point overall) but Pop definitely seemed hell-bent on not letting that happen. His shooting to start his Spurs stint was better than I remembered, but I definitely remembered him getting banished to the bench and not given the opportunity to play through mistakes.

The fact that he had some success to start his Spurs stint, when Pop allowed for him to acclimate before "coacing him up", and then went into the tank after being "coached-up", definitely lends credence to your theory.

I do remember that Detroit game and the "quarterback controversy" articles, now that you mention it.:lol :toast



I don't disagree with you on how the Stoudamire experiment went, but my hopes were never that high considering his lack of size, age, and the fact that he was aquired mid-season.(Point-guard's hard enough. Learning how to play it for L.B. or Pop mid-season? You'd have a better chance at finding a solution to the country's economic situation.)



I think Pop does a good job of finding players that's strength's mesh with team needs, but not necessarily developing offensive players. I wasn't really reffering to young players, either. (But I wouldn't give him too much credit for a 26yr.old pro in Manu or the Jack's of the world, at least offensively, who have the confidence/swagger to put the ball in the hole whether they're playing in S.A. or on Mars.)

Pop's a counter-puncher with a bend-but-not-break mentality, that while breeds consistency on the defensive-end by playing percentages, it also bleeds into the offensive-end negatively.

It's like any good counter-puncher in boxing.

He'll always be in the fight, but he'll rarely get the knock-out.

Pop's style was plenty successful and completely understandable given the offensive talent surrounding Tim pre-2005, but time's/talent have changed, which is something even Pop has come to terms with.

I think it really started to hit him in '04 with Hedo and '05 with Barry, that his reigns were becoming more of a detriment on the offense than a governor, thus, the noticeable change in rhetoric, "Shoot the damn ball." But until recently, with the likes of a Bonner, has his rhetoric and his actions actually coincided.

You can't de-program and remove hesitance (maybe the worst thing to have offensively) over night, or with rhetoric alone, but at least Pop seems to be making some progress in that area.

The one thing that I've always begrudgedly admired about P. Jackson, is his use of the triangle and willingness to let his team play through mistakes. Not bailing his team out with a timeout, when it seems all is going to hell.

The triangle provides a more consistent and predictable offense, as to where every offensive player's shots are going to come from, allowing for better continuity and rhythm,(especially for role-players) and the not getting bailed-out breeds confidence and pays dividends down the road, when the games really count. Yes, he's had plenty of talent to work with over the years, but his teams are usually among the most consistent offenses, and among the most balanced both offensively and defensively, year-in and year-out.

I don't expect Pop to start picking Phil's brain (unless we're talking, literally:smokin) but he could definitely learn a thig or two from him offensively.

Pop's come a hell of a long way, especially x's and o's-wise over the years, but he's still got a little ways to go.

Thank you. I agree. People on here think Pop's is flawless,just because of past success. Pop's has always had a great young team to coach with exceptional abilities. But let's see how he does with older spurs who's best days are behind them. Let's see how Pop's can adapt.

[ata]

Disagree. Pop has gotten good play out of a number of young players. He won a championship in 2003 with basically two rookies at shooting guard (SJax and Manu) plus Bowen and Claxton only had a few years of NBA experience. He found Malik Rose and turned him into a very rich basketball player. When given a quality young player who isn't a backup point guard, Pop has usually done a good job.

Almost every fan of every team in the NBA says that their coach isn't fair to young players. I actually think Pop is one of the best coaches in the league at coaching young players. Look at this year for another example. Mason is in his first full year of playing in the NBA and Pop had him playing well ... until he put him at backup point guard.
C'mon - I am talking about youth, not NBA milage.
SJax was in his 3rd season, age 25
Manu, already international star, age 26
Mason, 5th season, age 29
Neither is(was) young and/or inexperienced - if player is not mentally stabil at 25, then there is good chance he never will be

There always is bunch of bench players with fat contracts.

On the other hand, we've seen a lot of players playing good ball, until Pop made some odd decisions

[Spurs Brazil]

We just can add one more to the list

Roger Mason Jr

He was very good before this stupid thing and now he looks like Hedo Part II

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

Spurs are still interested in Spanoulis. They have been scouting him again and also Pablo Prigioni.

[Spurs Brazil]

Spurs are still interested in Spanoulis. They have been scouting him again and also Prigioni.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Stop with this shit

[SenorSpur]

The mere fact that Pop is now playing JV as backup point is an indication that that Mason experiment isn't working out.

[benefactor]

The depressing truth of this thread becomes more and more real with every game.

[TJastal]

I think the spurs problems as a whole are

1. Popovich's constant tinkering with the lineups / substitution patterns .. its kind of obvious the team is confused and out of sync at at time when these types of things should be set in stone. Especially poor George Hill who probably has no idea what Popovich wants him to do. This segways into the second point....

2. George Hill getting spotty minutes by Popovich which have dimished throughout the year. Why was he drafted #1 if he's not going to get any consistent minutes?? If you look at Mario Chalmers (who was picked in the 2nd round no less) and he's still the starting PG for the Heat and a has become a major contributor. Hill and Chalmers are very similar talent-wise, only difference being Hill is a better slasher and man to man defender/shotblocker, Chalmers a better shooter and ballhawk/pickpocket. Both deserve to be playing consistent minutes, yet only one is.

3. It's become crystal clear to me that the spurs still really need a guy who can guard the Kobe's, Lebron's, Durant's of the league, a lockdown wing defender. Bruce Bowen used to be that guy, even up to a few years ago, but it seems he doesn't have the quickness anymore. That is why I lobbied hard for the spurs to go hard after Michael Pietrus this past off-season, who I think would have been the guy to fill that role.

They picked up Roger Mason Jr instead, who I've had to admit has done very well with the team as a spot up clutch 3pt shooter, but more and more its becoming obvious to me that Pietrus would have given the spurs more of what they really needed. They already had a ton of guys that can shoot and hit the 3, while RMJ is excellent at that, its not what was needed most.

And what they needed most IMO was a versatile lockdown defender guy who for instance would have harrassed Kevin Durant into a having a few more misses in last night's game, so instead of 12-19 he goes 9-19. If that happens, the Spurs would have won that game by 5 in that example. RMJ is a decent defender himself, but he lacks the versatility to guard the larger guards of the league, which Pietrus does on a nightly basis. The spurs have a lock down defender in Hill for the smaller guards, but no answer for guys like Durant, and that was really obvious in last night's game.

4. Besides Pietrus' versatility on defense, he also runs the floor very well and finishes on the fast break fairly well. This seems to me to be another area I think the spurs a shaky. Don't get me wrong, Parker IS the best 1 man fast break in the league.. but it would be nice to have a guy trailing Parker that can elevate and finish at the rim. He also gives Parker (and the spurs) a guy in the half court set that can make cuts and go backdoor to the rim and finish top shelf with a lob pass. Not to mention he can drain the 3 pretty well (not quite as good as RMJ but pretty close).

I've watched Pietrus do all these things in an Orlando Magic uniform this year, and it just kills me that the spurs never really considered him on their free agent radar this past off season. And while he made alot of mistakes adjusting early in the year (especially with many unnecessary fouls) he has learned from his mistakes. The knock on him in the past was he had low bball IQ, and whilst that used to be true, all indications are that he is getting the NBA game down now, and becoming a major contributor to a championship caliber team in Orlando. This kind of reminds me of Turkoglu.. it seems the Euro's need a little more time to adjust to the NBA game, but once they do they seem to flourish.. I bet the spurs wish they kept their hands on Turkoglu now instead of letting him slip thru the fingers.. That guy is an amazing player indeed, and an amazing bargain by NBA salary standards.

The only knock on Pietrus has been his inability to stay healthy, which I think was due in part to his recklessness and abandon going to the rim in year's past causing him to take many nasty spills. With his maturity and IQ improving each game, his DNP's will lessen as he becomes a smarter player out there.

I'm sure there are more things I could nit-pick, but those 4 are the major things wrong with the spurs right now, in summary: Pop's inconsistent lineups (and substitutions but I won't get into that and make this post any longer), Pop's handling of George Hill, the lack of a lockdown defender for the big guards that are consistently torching the spurs, and the lack of a wing who can finish at the rim and run the fast break, simply put they have too many 3pt shooting marksman and not enough creators / slashers / finishers.

[SenorSpur]

3. It's become crystal clear to me that the spurs still really need a guy who can guard the Kobe's, Lebron's, Durant's of the league, a lockdown wing defender. Bruce Bowen used to be that guy, even up to a few years ago, but it seems he doesn't have the quickness anymore. That is why I lobbied hard for the spurs to go hard after Michael Pietrus this past off-season, who I think would have been the guy to fill that role.

And what they needed most IMO was a versatile lockdown defender guy who for instance would have harrassed Kevin Durant into a having a few more misses in last night's game, so instead of 12-19 he goes 9-19. If that happens, the Spurs would have won that game by 5 in that example. RMJ is a decent defender himself, but he lacks the versatility to guard the larger guards of the league, which Pietrus does on a nightly basis. The spurs have a lock down defender in Hill for the smaller guards, but no answer for guys like Durant, and that was really obvious in last night's game.

4. Besides Pietrus' versatility on defense, he also runs the floor very well and finishes on the fast break fairly well. This seems to me to be another area I think the spurs a shaky. Don't get me wrong, Parker IS the best 1 man fast break in the league.. but it would be nice to have a guy trailing Parker that can elevate and finish at the rim. He also gives Parker (and the spurs) a guy in the half court set that can make cuts and go backdoor to the rim and finish top shelf with a lob pass. Not to mention he can drain the 3 pretty well (not quite as good as RMJ but pretty close).

I've watched Pietrus do all these things in an Orlando Magic uniform this year, and it just kills me that the spurs never really considered him on their free agent radar this past off season. And while he made alot of mistakes adjusting early in the year (especially with many unnecessary fouls) he has learned from his mistakes. The knock on him in the past was he had low bball IQ, and whilst that used to be true, all indications are that he is getting the NBA game down now, and becoming a major contributor to a championship caliber team in Orlando. This kind of reminds me of Turkoglu.. it seems the Euro's need a little more time to adjust to the NBA game, but once they do they seem to flourish.. I bet the spurs wish they kept their hands on Turkoglu now instead of letting him slip thru the fingers.. That guy is an amazing player indeed, and an amazing bargain by NBA salary standards.

The only knock on Pietrus has been his inability to stay healthy, which I think was due in part to his recklessness and abandon going to the rim in year's past causing him to take many nasty spills. With his maturity and IQ improving each game, his DNP's will lessen as he becomes a smarter player out there.


Funny, I've been lobbying for the Spurs to acquire Pietrus for about two seasons now. My idea was repeatedly met with the claims of his "low BBIQ". Meanwhile, the Spurs are repeatedly getting attacked at the SF position by superior players across this league. Now that Bowen has fallen out of the rotation, the Spurs are at a supreme disadvantage at that position. Opposing SFs are having great success either from the perimeter or whenever they attack the basket. At this moment, the Spurs are rendered helpless to stop them. Durant is just the latest example of this. On offense, the Spurs have perimeter shooters, albeit inconsistent shooters. Yet they simply do not have another player of similar skills to attack the basket and breakdown the defense.

Frankly, it makes no sense that the Spurs do not have an answer at this position. My fear has always been that they would wait too long to address it and it's finally happened.

It sounds like you watch a lot of Orlando Magic games. Personally, I can't comment on how Pietrus has developed, but from your assessment, it sounds like he's coming along nicely. Your points are well stated. Personally, I still would've rather seen the Spurs take a chance on him and develop him on the fly.

[timvp]

I knew I was right when I started this thread but now it's like Pop is going the extra mile to prove I'm right. So Pop, yeah we get it. Please, please stop the insanity. I'm sorry for broaching the subject.

:yield

[benefactor]

Vaughn............................................ ....:lmao:lol:nope:ihit:bang:depressed

[Manufan909]

Vaughn............................................ ....:lmao:lol:nope:ihit:bang:depressed

I would love to know the true reason for Hill losing the backup PG spot. If it boils down to Pops past experiences, then that is pathetic. Hill should get time at the end of the season to prove himself, cuz him doing awesome the first half of the season means jack shit in Pops mind, but Vaughn, who has never been more than a scrapy vet who knows the plays better, is getting the call.:bang:bang:bang

[superbigtime]

Vaughn should not see any minutes for any reason except garbage time to limit possibility of injury to the players who can actually play basketball. The opponent does not even guard him, leaving a double or triple team situation on Duncan, Manu, etc. Why on earth does Pop have Manu play with JV, leaving JV as the shooting guard? He just goes and waits in the corner, but he can't shoot for shit. Pop fucked up ROYALLY by not establishing Hill consistently as Tony's backup.

[spursfan1000]

Nice Post, I totally agree with you timvp, the only other thing I got to say is that Pop give him more minutes and just let him play for the rest of the season! I hope that Hill wont leave the Spurs like the other players...sorta like udrih.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hill isn't even like Beno, which is the bad thing..Beno is a soft pussy that doesn't play defense..

Hill didn't actually do anything wrong here..Pop was just paranoid and cautious in advance, since he seems like he doesn't want to risk seeing a rookie make mistakes in the playoffs..the annoying thing is that Jacque Vaughn makes stupid decisions all the time, particularly on D..

we could have used him a lot the last few games..when Westbrook was shitting on us, and today on Mo Williams..

I don't see how a lockdown defensive PG with athleticism and freakish length can't help a team in the playoffs, even as a rookie..

I thought we were done with JV when Hill was drafted..it's sad..

[smrattler]

I don't know why Hill lost his backup role. He was doing the job.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY....

The rotation and the roles defined were working!!!!!

Defense? No, it still sucked. But with Hill out there, he sure as hell does his part at least.

MAson could "start" and find his spots to take shots with TP and TD out there.

But TP could sit and Hill and Manu could step in and get Manu as many shots as he wanted.

We have proven time and again, year after year, Manu plays better off the bench because he is an aggresive offensive player when both TD and TP are not out there and he has to assert himself.

Mason is not that kind of bench player. he's more of picking his spots and being patient. Oh yeah, Pop also forced him to play PG... again, not sure why, everything seemed to be working well offensively.

When all those things are flowing, that's when guys like Bonner, Thomas and Fin find themselves wide open.

[kace]

I knew I was right when I started this thread but now it's like Pop is going the extra mile to prove I'm right. So Pop, yeah we get it. Please, please stop the insanity. I'm sorry for broaching the subject.

:yield

i still don't agree. i read the whole thing and i still don't see a valid arguments about Pop not able to coach backup PG.

We had some really bad backup PG. at best, you could argue he and RC can't choose backup PG to fit the team.

but in recent years, Beno, NVE, Stoudemire, JV have just been awful by themselves. nothing on Pop's coaching for this.

and this year, i guess alot of fans, including me, agree that Hill should be the backup PG. JV, as usual, and Mason sucked as PG. It wasn't Pop fault's.

so, the only Pop's fault here would be to not play Hill. but there, i just see the usual reluctance of Pop to trust rookies, whatever their position is. nothing directly related to backup PG position.

so basically, the two mistakes of Pop for me would be:
- not able to choose a good backup PG who would fit the spurs (fault shared with RC).
- not trusting rookies, even when they're good and they are the best choice (Hill as the backup PG).

and hopefully, Hill will be trusted next year as a sophomore and the backup PG position won't be a weakness anymore.

i still don't think see anything proving Pop's coaching specific weakness about the backup position.

[MavTalker]

I wonder how many in this topic are going to edit their original posts! :lmao

[timvp]

I wonder how many in this topic are going to edit their original posts! :lmaoMason sure tore it up tonight :tu

[spursfaninla]

I think Mason's problem is he is not the type of pg we need. The pg in this system needs to be a penetrating, kick-out pg. Mason is not that.

Hill was that until his job became to bring the ball up the court and hand it to manu on the second unit.

With Manu in the second unit, it messes up the role that he 2nd unit pg has...

[FTL]

Pop isn't the best at coaching .

:bang

[timvp]

If Pop knew how to coach point guards and would have just let Hill as the backup point, the Spurs would at least be tied in this series. With one move, he successfully destroyed both Hill and Mason.

Maybe there's time to fix the error but Pop better learn quickly.

:pctoss:pctoss:pctoss:pctoss:pctoss:pctoss

[Warlord23]

If nothing else, Pop could have used this playoff run (however short it may be) to get Hill accustomed to handling the rock in big games, and have Mason improve in his earlier role of designated off-the-ball shooter and be a replacement for Finley.

Like you said, he's just fucked them both over.