PDA

View Full Version : Great post from 48 minutes of hell - Glut of Guards



RuffnReadyOzStyle
05-07-2009, 03:11 AM
Offseason Breakdown: Glut of Guards
Jump to Comments

One of the unanswered questions–so far–of this offseason is trying to figure out how the Spurs see their 2009 backcourt. Personally, I see George Hill as a point guard and Roger Mason Jr. as a shooting guard. But that’s not how Pop played them down the stretch, and we have reason to wonder how things will take shape this summer.

In his year-end analysis, the dependable Jeff McDonald wrote that Roger Mason Jr. “Will become more valuable as he becomes more comfortable at the point.” About George Hill he wrote, “Will see more time once he learns to be a point guard.” Some of you might be thinking that McDonald mailed those sentences in. But that not the case. He’s got the pulse of a confusing backcourt situation. It’s the sort of confusion that may work itself out naturally as players develop, or it may require some front office intervention.

What We Know

Tony Parker is an ace. He’s entered into the land of elite players this season, and promptly set up camp and unfurled his flag. He’s only 26. He and Tim Duncan anchor the team. His task for the summer should be extending his range out to the three point line. We’ll see.

Unfortunately, we do know something about his summer. He’ll be playing for the French National Team. This is a trend which will continue through 2012, barring injury. In other words, between regular season games, postseason games, and international competition, Tony Parker is 26 going on 28. You can’t fault him for playing for his country, but it does make one worry. Nevertheless, he is near his prime, and in that respect the Spurs point guard situation is locked into stone.

Behind Parker, we have questions. The first is related to his French allegiance. Will Popovich limit Parker’s minutes next season–at least for the first half–in order to rest him. Speaking for myself, I’d like to see Coach Popovich sit the Big 3 out of most back-to-backs. And I’d like to see Tony Parker play closer to 30 minutes a game. Limiting his minutes would serve two important functions: resting his legs and allowing the Spurs time to develop their back up point guards. Popovich ought to make this a coaching prerogative for the 2009-10 season.

Who Is the Reserve Point Guard?

This is the question. With Jacque Vaughn’s contract now expired, the Spurs will have to find a 3rd point. This would typically seem inconsequential, but with their tight cap situation, it’s something worth thinking about. To my mind, the Spurs will either draft a point or find one through training camp. Near the end of the season, Marcus Williams played exclusively at point forward for the Toros. He knows the Spurs playbook, and would be an inexpensive option. Technically, he’s already under contract. At 6′7”, he’d give the Spurs a different look as a deep reserve point forward. I’m cheering for him to make the team, and I think his ability to advance the ball, initiate the offense and defend represent his best chance of sticking.

From a roster standpoint, the Spurs are not harmed by taking this risk because they have Manu Ginobili, Roger Mason Jr. and George Hill on deck. Any of those players can sub at point if the Spurs are in a pinch. And one of either Mason Jr. or Hill really ought to be subbing at point full time. Popovich does a disservice to the team by veering between Roger Mason Jr. and George Hill. He needs to choose one and consistently go to him in the role of backup point. But Pop’s problem is a real one–neither Mason Jr. nor Hill are really point guards. At least not yet.

Mason Jr. is a shooting guard. I’m not going to argue the point, because it should be obvious to everyone who watches Spurs basketball. He’s uncomfortable at point, he doesn’t have the skill set, and it goes against his best attribute, which is the ability to spot up and bomb. George Hill might be a point guard, but I’m not convinced it’s his natural position. It’s gonna take work. Moreover, Hill will receive the majority of his minutes on defensive duty, and this will often include the other team’s best wing. When the Spurs go to bench in this way, Hill routinely plays shooting guard by default because Popovich must give a defensive account for the opposing point guard. In other words, if Hill is on assignment against Jason Terry, Parker or Mason Jr. will have to guard Jason Kidd. Otherwise, the Spurs are simply robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

If Bruce Bowen has in fact played his last game as a Spur, and I think that he has, the Spurs need to place an emphasis on upgrading their defensive personnel. Bruce Bowen was such an outstanding defender that very few players in the world can replicate what he does within the Spurs system (Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Kobe Bryant, Tayshaun Prince, and, perhaps, Dimitris Diamantidis). Assuming that none of those players are with the Spurs next season, the next best option, and the only option readily available, is to replace Bruce Bowen with two or three above average defenders, giving lock down duty to more players than in year’s past. George Hill has already shown that he can be part of project. In this way, I think George Hill is more valuable to the Spurs than Roger Mason Jr. He’s cheaper, he has a higher ceiling, and he can defend. Too bad for the Spurs, that ceiling is still a long way off. Hence, the conundrum.

The Problem

If what I’ve said in the above paragraphs is true, then the Spurs have a problem. They’ll play George Hill at shooting guard for his defense, giving him what is leftover of Manu Ginobili’s minutes. And they’ll be forced to play Roger Mason Jr. at point guard, which is not his natural position. In short, I think the Spurs have too much going on at shooting guard (I haven’t even addressed Michael Finley in this discussion, even though he slides between 2 and 3). They have a makeshift yet workable situation behind Tony Parker at point, but it’s not really ideal in terms of player development or setting a consistent, dependable playoff rotation. Meanwhile, the Spurs have a black hole at small forward where Finley is too old, Udoka is inconsistent, underwhelming and out of contract, and Bowen is a dead man walking. It’s an ugly mess.

Where am I going with all this? If the Spurs need to add a sweetener to their expiring contracts in order to facilitate a trade, especially a trade for an All-Star wing, they should choose either Roger Mason Jr. or George Hill as that sweetener. They’re both good players, but will be fighting one another for minutes while the Spurs languish on the wing. This is not to say the Spurs have to trade either player, just that they could be expendable in exchange for a greater good. It’s one of those situations that calls one to kill a good thing so that the better thing can live. Put differently, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, George Hill and Roger Mason Jr. is something of an overkill when you have such a desperate roster need elsewhere.

I’ll pick up with Part Two of this breakdown tomorrow morning.

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/05/06/offseason-breakdown-glut-of-guards/

Except for the compliment to Jeff McDonald (who is a decidedly below average Spurs beat guy... miss you Buck), he's spot on. These guys run a fantastic blog. Here's to you, Graydon and Timothy. :toast

PS ...and maybe describing JM as "dependable" was a backhanded insult. ;)

PPS It's worth looking at the reader comments after the article too. ome good posts.

texbumTHElife
05-07-2009, 03:21 AM
Great read, thank you.

RuffnReadyOzStyle
05-07-2009, 03:53 AM
You're welcome. :)

urunobili
05-07-2009, 07:46 AM
:lol at the Mc Donald love

rascal
05-07-2009, 08:36 AM
That was all said in here awhile back. Nothing new.

kace
05-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Put differently, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, George Hill and Roger Mason Jr. is something of an overkill when you have such a desperate roster need elsewhere.

i don't really agree.

In PO, where manu and tony will be playing a comined 70 mpg, that could be the case, with 26 minutes left for Mason and hill unless manu or mason plays the 3 in small ball for some minutes.

but in RS, where it could be very sweet to see manu average 25 mpg and tony 32 mpg and, in a perfect world, be rested for some games (especially B2B like the author said), i think it would be good to have mason and hill playing a lot of minutes.

without 2 solid backup at the 1 and 2 position, there's no way to rest manu and tony enough and still get a PO berth in the west.

and having a solid backup at each guard position isn't something so great, it's the minimum, even if we're weak at the SF.

colargol
05-07-2009, 03:37 PM
Offseason Breakdown: Glut of Guards
Jump to Comments

And I’d like to see Tony Parker play closer to 30 minutes a game. Limiting his minutes would serve two important functions: resting his legs and allowing the Spurs time to develop their back up point guards. Popovich ought to make this a coaching prerogative for the 2009-10 season.


And then Tp runs out of gas during the fourth quarter coming PO times...his a athlete he needs to be prepare for 48..if needed

024
05-07-2009, 04:17 PM
i still find it amazing that after 7-8 years of parker starting at the point, the spurs are still struggling to find a consistent, reliable, backup point guard. it boggles the mind.

vander
05-07-2009, 05:22 PM
It'd really not that complicated, pair TP and Mason together most of the time, and pair PG Hill with Manu as much as possible. then even though Hill is the point, Manu will be creating most of the offense.

then when Manu is gone next year, the training wheels come off and Hill will run the show as the best backup PG we've ever had behind TP

Taking it to the Hole
05-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Pop just needs to stop messing around and let Hill figure out the point. Let Mason do what he does best: SHOOT It's not rocket science, yet it is painfully obvious Pop doesn't trust his new players yet, so he is trying to figure out roles for them when they already have roles!!!

Blackjack
05-07-2009, 05:53 PM
Near the end of the season, Marcus Williams played exclusively at point forward for the Toros. He knows the Spurs playbook, and would be an inexpensive option. Technically, he’s already under contract. At 6′7”, he’d give the Spurs a different look as a deep reserve point forward.

The fact that the Spurs went with Williams over Hairston lead me to believe the same thing.

I'm not sure how high they are on Williams' ability to play the point-forward at the NBA-level but I'd love to see this team with a player of that capability.

This team needs to look for as much versatility as possible and the ability to play Hill at the 2, without sacrificing size defensively, would serve this team well.

RuffnReadyOzStyle
05-07-2009, 11:54 PM
My 2c - Hill is our backup PG of the future, so let the kid play himself into the role, Pop. Been saying the same thing for 2 months now.

VI_Massive
05-08-2009, 12:36 AM
My 2c - Hill is our backup PG of the future, so let the kid play himself into the role, Pop. Been saying the same thing for 2 months now.

Agreed, hopefully. But can he play into that role by next year? If not, then where do we look for a back up PG? PG wasn't his position in college and even college PGs often take a few years to blossom in the pros, so shouldn't we assume with Hill it'll take at least that long?

024
05-08-2009, 12:49 AM
hill needs better court vision to be a pg. i don't know how much he can develop that.

symple19
05-08-2009, 01:16 AM
Whatever the Spurs do, it shouldn't include Roger at point - All he should be doing is waiting to shoot open 3s on the kick-out - Hill can sub point in reg. season, then in playoffs Manu can handle ball to spell Parker, with Hill or Mason at the 2 spot

Blackjack
05-08-2009, 01:24 AM
Hill just needs to be on the court.

Whether it's at the 1 or 2, is of little consequence to me.

The kid's already shown the capability of being an elite-level defender and once he's settled into his role within the system, the shooting most scouts expected to see upon his entry into the NBA will return.

He's going to have his growing pains but his ceiling is quite high.

He's a combo-guard and we'll never be the prototypical point, but to be quite honest, the Spurs don't need the prototypical point. As long as he can bring up the ball, initiate the offense and defend his position the Spurs will be fine.

If Williams could actually pull the point-forward off at the NBA level, the ability/versatility to go small (Parker-Hill) traditional (Williams-Hill/Williams-Parker) or big (Williams-Ginobili/Ginobili-Mason--Mason exclusively at the 2) would give the Spurs a backcourt that could conceivably allow Pop to keep the guys a little fresher and provide some new wrinkles for Pop on the offensive-end.

RuffnReadyOzStyle
05-08-2009, 05:29 AM
Hill just needs to be on the court.

Whether it's at the 1 or 2, is of little consequence to me.

The kid's already shown the capability of being an elite-level defender and once he's settled into his role within the system, the shooting most scouts expected to see upon his entry into the NBA will return.

He's going to have his growing pains but his ceiling is quite high.

He's a combo-guard and we'll never be the prototypical point, but to be quite honest, the Spurs don't need the prototypical point. As long as he can bring up the ball, initiate the offense and defend his position the Spurs will be fine.

If Williams could actually pull the point-forward off at the NBA level, the ability/versatility to go small (Parker-Hill) traditional (Williams-Hill/Williams-Parker) or big (Williams-Ginobili/Ginobili-Mason--Mason exclusively at the 2) would give the Spurs a backcourt that could conceivably allow Pop to keep the guys a little fresher and provide some new wrinkles for Pop on the offensive-end.

Well said, spot on, especially the italicised bit. :tu

Bruno
05-08-2009, 06:39 AM
I quite disagree that Spurs have a glut of guards.
First, while Hill will likely be better next year than this year, will he be better to the point that he deserves to play significant minutes at SG in additions of the backup PG minutes ?
Second, Spurs can play some minutes with a three guard lineups.

If Spurs needs to add a sweetener in a trade, a future first round pick is the thing to add.

jason1301
05-08-2009, 07:10 AM
I agree with the TS, it makes sense to ship either Mason or Hill, well you can't trade Hill he is cheap and has great potential. As much I hate the idea, trading Mason could be good for our team. His stock is high, and he chocked during the playoffs, he is a player that can bring something back in return.

About Diamantidis, he is an outstanding defender but i am afraid that he maybe too old and too slow for the NBA. In 2005, when Greece won euro Gold, he stated he is not interested playing in the NBA, and I don't think much has changed 4 years later.

I wanted to keep mason, but after reading this thread it makes sense to trade him.

tav1
05-08-2009, 07:18 AM
The post makes the point that the Spurs should consider moving either player if it helps them land an impact player, especially a wing. This is not about trading for the sake of trading, but a willingness to part with Hill or Mason Jr. for an upgrade elsewhere. Even in a bad economy teams will be reluctant to accept a trade package of nothing but throwaways. The Spurs will have to give to get.

raspsa
05-08-2009, 07:34 AM
A lot will depend on Manu's situation. If healthy, he'll backup Parker at PG. Maybe by then he and Mason will find a way to play well together..

spurspokesman
05-08-2009, 07:40 AM
We have the pieces to the puzzle but pops experimenting is f'ing it up. Cut the bull*&^% and define the roles. Maybe something like this.

PG- parker, Hill, Williams
SG- Ginobilli, Mason, (Finley combo at SF)
SF- Ariza or Azibuke) Gist, (Bowen combo at SG)
PF- Duncan Gooden or Dice
C- Ian, Kurt, (:bangBonner combo at PF)

Yuixafun
05-08-2009, 08:05 AM
Great in what regard?

spurstd4
05-08-2009, 08:36 AM
i think we should trade parker for a couple of impact players. tony loyalty should be to the spurs not his french nat. team. with all the basketball tony's gonna be playing it just a matter of time before we see another "manu" situtation. tony said he's signed on to frenchies till 2012. i don't think he can hold up. he's won his championships if he really wanted to win in san antonio he should stay here and not in france. george hill did great when tony was out. maybe it's something to consider.:flag::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:ftl!!!!!!!!

Mel_13
05-08-2009, 02:43 PM
We have the pieces to the puzzle

No, we don't. And your proposed depth chart shows that we don't.


Maybe something like this.

PG- parker, Hill, Williams
SG- Ginobilli, Mason, (Finley combo at SF)
SF- Ariza or Azibuke) Gist, (Bowen combo at SG)
PF- Duncan Gooden or Dice
C- Ian, Kurt, (:bangBonner combo at PF)

How do the Spurs get one of Ariza/Azubuike AND one of Gooden/Dice?