Tone; And The Ramifications.

[Blackjack]

Matt Bonner.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Don't answer that; rhetorical question..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Bonner starts for now; as does Finley.

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

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

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

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

[Mel_13]

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

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

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

[EricB]

McDyess himself said he wasn't in shape.

Take it up with him.

[Bruno]

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

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

[Blackjack]

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


McDyess himself said he wasn't in shape.

Take it up with him.

:lol

[Blackjack]

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

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

Sadly, I agree.

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

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

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

[CubanSucks]

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

[Blackjack]

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

Sorry.

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

[Death In June]

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

[CubanSucks]

Sorry.

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

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

[the crimson blur]

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

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

[lennyalderette]

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

[Spurs#1]

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

[lennyalderette]

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

[objective]

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

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

[the crimson blur]

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

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

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

[sabar]

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

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

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

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

[Johnny RIngo]

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

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

[ezau]

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

[Mel_13]

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

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

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

[the crimson blur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think people are confused as to why Bonner and Fin are getting the roles that they are at this point of the season. In fact, I think Pop may be right in starting them, at least for now. Bonner's situation has been spelled out already; Blair needs Dice to check his defensive inefficiencies and Bonner helps Timmy offensively. What people need to remember is that this is not an insurmountable problem in the rotation caused by the downsides of our talent. Blair has great defensive potential, particularly against bigs with high centers of gravity . Remember how the Lakers frontline got wrecked by the very small Rockets frontline? Bigs with high centers of gravity lean on their defender when making their post dribbles. When you have a smaller guy like Blair guarding them, you ruin their balance. Add Blair's length, great hands, high basketball IQ, and superb positioning, and you get a guy who has terrific defensive potential. As Graydon Gordian said in the Daily Dime recently:
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-091029)

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

Certainly Blair's defensive struggles aren't for lack of effort. If anything, a more tempered approach might do the rookie some good.
After the game I spoke with Antonio McDyess (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=530) about his tutelage of Blair. McDyess mentioned that after Popovich pulled Blair from the game because of one too many unnecessary fouls, Blair was hard on himself as he returned to the bench.

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

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

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

[SpurNation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mel_13]

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

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

I think people are confused as to why Bonner and Fin are getting the roles that they are at this point of the season. In fact, I think Pop may be right in starting them, at least for now. Bonner's situation has been spelled out already; Blair needs Dice to check his defensive inefficiencies and Bonner helps Timmy offensively. What people need to remember is that this is not an insurmountable problem in the rotation caused by the downsides of our talent. Blair has great defensive potential, particularly against bigs with high centers of gravity . Remember how the Lakers frontline got wrecked by the very small Rockets frontline? Bigs with high centers of gravity lean on their defender when making their post dribbles. When you have a smaller guy like Blair guarding them, you ruin their balance. Add Blair's length, great hands, high basketball IQ, and superb positioning, and you get a guy who has terrific defensive potential. As Graydon Gordian said in the Daily Dime recently:
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-091029)


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

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

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

Great post:tu

[benefactor]

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

[to21]

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

[Chieflion]

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

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

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

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

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

What I would suggest or implement is a different offensive strategy in B2B situations that would allow for more involvement of our bigs in scoring possibilities from the post which also would allow the team better opportunity for offensive rebounds. A team of Duncan, Blair and Jefferson along with said different offensive scheme in those situations just might be what the doctor ordered to combat the physical demands of playing B2B's.
No one was even talking about offensive boards. The Spurs gave up 15 offensive rebounds to the Bulls, which results in 15 more posessions, not to mention the extra turnovers.

[ceperez]

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

Agree here, it's damn early. Experiment with what you got.

But I took a second look at the box score, Bonner was +11.

[ceperez]

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

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

Agree. Defense was pretty good in the 2nd half. Problem was RJ, Parker and Manu not being able to score. They just didn't have the legs for it.

Finley always seems a second too slow when contesting a jump shot. On the other hand, who do we have to replace Finley?

Wish we had Bowen back instead of this undersized Bogans.

[spurspokesman]

The bulls were just way more athletic than us and constantly outhustled us on many cylinders. Combine that with there shots dropping and that can sink a lot of teams in this league. Including our spurs. But that type of play wont work always. Good teams like san antonio adapt and find a way. we will get back on our rocker.

[Bruno]

One name....Jeff Foster. :)

Trading Finley + Bonner for a defensive minded big like Foster would solve Spurs defensive troubles.

No only will be the interior defense improve but also the perimeter defense because a part of Finley's minutes will be give to a significantly better defender (Bogans or Hairston).

Spurs will lost some shooting but I think that having a better defense is much more important.

[Chomag]

Trading Finley + Bonner for a defensive minded big like Foster would solve Spurs defensive troubles.

No only will be the interior defense improve but also the perimeter defense because a part of Finley's minutes will be give to a significantly better defender (Bogans or Hairston).

Spurs will lost some shooting but I think that having a better defense is much more important.

I hate to say it but the farther we can put Finely away from Pop the better it would be for the both of them.

[ElNono]

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

But you can't. Denver and Portland come to mind.
We need a solution to this, not simply expect to lose those games.

[kobyz]

Trading Finley + Bonner for a defensive minded big like Foster would solve Spurs defensive troubles.

No only will be the interior defense improve but also the perimeter defense because a part of Finley's minutes will be give to a significantly better defender (Bogans or Hairston).

Spurs will lost some shooting but I think that having a better defense is much more important.

we don't need Foster! we have trouble against athletic teams, Foster will not help us defensively cause he is not an improvment over guys we already have like duncan, McDyess, Ratliff, he doesn't give anything defensively that they don't.
we need to be more athletic, we need to put Ian Mahinmi in the line up.

[Agloco]

we don't need Foster! we have trouble against athletic teams, Foster will not help us defensively cause he is not an improvment over guys we already have like duncan, McDyess, Ratliff, he doesn't give anything defensively that they don't.
we need to be more athletic, we need to put Ian Mahinmi in the line up.

We need to balance athleticism with youth. Ian would foul out in less than 10 minutes consistently while giving us little in return.

[Flux451]

Folks, welcome to preseason.

[Agloco]

Agree here, it's damn early. Experiment with what you got.

But I took a second look at the box score, Bonner was +11.

+/- is the worst stat ever IMO. If Bonner was the only person out there at any given time, it would be a much better indicator of his value. The fact that the stat also depends on what 9 other players are doing makes it a marginally useful stat, if useful at all.

[NRHector]

Remember...."it doesn't matter who starts." :rolleyesyou are right it doesn't matter who starts but who ever does they better start aggressive and don't get in to a hole that is going to be hard to get out of

[Mel_13]

we don't need Foster! we have trouble against athletic teams, Foster will not help us defensively cause he is not an improvment over guys we already have like duncan, McDyess, Ratliff, he doesn't give anything defensively that they don't.
we need to be more athletic, we need to put Ian Mahinmi in the line up.

Astonishing.

Truly astonishing.

[Chomag]

Folks, welcome to preseason.
:huh

[wildbill2u]

Four observations:

1. We got beat when they went small. But we didn't because Manu and Tony didn't play well. Among others

2. We live and die by the 3. When you go 4-21 (19%) we will lose.

3. Even when they went small we got beat on rebounds. Lots of them were long offensive rebounds--the rebounding margin of difference by the way-- that just wound up in their hands or they hustled for.

4. It's a long season. Shit happens.

[HarlemHeat37]

It's difficult to analyze exactly where our defensive problems are coming from, since it's only been 2 games..

Duncan has been great defensively these first 2 games IMO, and he isn't even nearly in basketball shape..so I have no doubt that he can still be a great anchor..we're gonna be waiting on McDyess to get in shape before we see a difference-maker defensively in the front-court, and who knows, 'Dice might not even be that guy..

Bonner hasn't been bad defensively these first 2 games..the problem is that he's never a positive defensively IMO, he's always neutral..if he isn't spreading the floor, he has no reason to be on the floor..

Ratliff should have gotten some minutes yesterday IMO..his forte is defense, at least give him a shot in a game where we desperately needed a spark of some kind..this part of the season should be to look for who can contribute before building the chemistry IMO..

Finley was clearly too slow on rotations..he can't keep up anymore..the same thing happened in the NO game, but he was making his shots at a good level, so everybody ignored it..we are never going to be a great defensive team with a 35+ year old offensive specialist starting..we no longer have the support to hide his weaknesses..

I just really hope Hairston gets a good chance to prove himself..he brings a different element to our bench, and we desperately need spark guys like him, especially somebody that can play defense like he does..he had a good NBA stint last year for a 2nd round rookie, so it's not like he's totally new here..he knows the system..

The positive is that we'll have the assets to pull off a trade if we need one..

[Chomag]

It's difficult to analyze exactly where our defensive problems are coming from, since it's only been 2 games..

Duncan has been great defensively these first 2 games IMO, and he isn't even nearly in basketball shape..so I have no doubt that he can still be a great anchor..we're gonna be waiting on McDyess to get in shape before we see a difference-maker defensively in the front-court, and who knows, 'Dice might not even be that guy..

Bonner hasn't been bad defensively these first 2 games..the problem is that he's never a positive defensively IMO, he's always neutral..if he isn't spreading the floor, he has no reason to be on the floor..

Ratliff should have gotten some minutes yesterday IMO..his forte is defense, at least give him a shot in a game where we desperately needed a spark of some kind..this part of the season should be to look for who can contribute before building the chemistry IMO..

Finley was clearly too slow on rotations..he can't keep up anymore..the same thing happened in the NO game, but he was making his shots at a good level, so everybody ignored it..we are never going to be a great defensive team with a 35+ year old offensive specialist starting..we no longer have the support to hide his weaknesses..

I just really hope Hairston gets a good chance to prove himself..he brings a different element to our bench, and we desperately need spark guys like him, especially somebody that can play defense like he does..he had a good NBA stint last year for a 2nd round rookie, so it's not like he's totally new here..he knows the system..

The positive is that we'll have the assets to pull off a trade if we need one..

Sadly I think no matter what Finely does or how bad he plays, Hairston will not even be able to sniff the court as long as Pop has Finely in his arsenal.

[MaNu4Tres]

It's difficult to analyze exactly where our defensive problems are coming from, since it's only been 2 games..

Duncan has been great defensively these first 2 games IMO, and he isn't even nearly in basketball shape..so I have no doubt that he can still be a great anchor..we're gonna be waiting on McDyess to get in shape before we see a difference-maker defensively in the front-court, and who knows, 'Dice might not even be that guy..

Bonner hasn't been bad defensively these first 2 games..the problem is that he's never a positive defensively IMO, he's always neutral..if he isn't spreading the floor, he has no reason to be on the floor..

Ratliff should have gotten some minutes yesterday IMO..his forte is defense, at least give him a shot in a game where we desperately needed a spark of some kind..this part of the season should be to look for who can contribute before building the chemistry IMO..

Finley was clearly too slow on rotations..he can't keep up anymore..the same thing happened in the NO game, but he was making his shots at a good level, so everybody ignored it..we are never going to be a great defensive team with a 35+ year old offensive specialist starting..we no longer have the support to hide his weaknesses..

I just really hope Hairston gets a good chance to prove himself..he brings a different element to our bench, and we desperately need spark guys like him, especially somebody that can play defense like he does..he had a good NBA stint last year for a 2nd round rookie, so it's not like he's totally new here..he knows the system..

The positive is that we'll have the assets to pull off a trade if we need one..


The only way Hairston will have a real opportunity is if Mason or Finley get traded away with Bonner for a big man.

[EricB]

You give up 89 points.

Again, how is that a "defensive problem"

If you average giving up 89 points a night your gonna be fine.


Missed shots and long rebounds were the problem.

One is fixed by hustle. The other is fixed by just shooting better.

[spurspokesman]

You give up 89 points.

Again, how is that a "defensive problem"

If you average giving up 89 points a night your gonna be fine.


Missed shots and long rebounds were the problem.

One is fixed by hustle. The other is fixed by just shooting better.

Agree eric but they just were more athletic than us and they gave more hustle on defense.

[kobyz]

We need to balance athleticism with youth. Ian would foul out in less than 10 minutes consistently while giving us little in return.

like you said we need athleticism and youth and that Mahinmi will bring, Mahinmi is also has skills and i think playing with the starters will emphasize his advantages and hide his weakness, playing with the starters will take away pressure off of him.

[HarlemHeat37]

the Bulls shot around 48% in the 2nd half and had their way..that IS a defensive problem..we had the same problem in the 2nd half of the Hornets game as well..

Sadly, I have to agree with Chomag and Manu4Tres..we can only hope..

[z0sa]

Rebounding was the problem. If we rebound, we win by double digits. We got outworked, not out-talented.

[Chomag]

You give up 89 points.

Again, how is that a "defensive problem"

If you average giving up 89 points a night your gonna be fine.


Missed shots and long rebounds were the problem.

One is fixed by hustle. The other is fixed by just shooting better.

NO defencive problem? Did you even watch last nights game? If so I hope you don't honestly think there was no defencive problem. I have more faith in you then that bro.

[Bruno]

I'm not in the thread starter head but I don't think his reaction is only based on the Bulls game. At least, mine isn't.

Most of Spurs players have been in the league for years and you know how they will play. When you look at the 10 players in Spurs' rotation, Spurs won't be a top3 defensive team in the league.

[Agloco]

like you said we need athleticism and youth and that Mahinmi will bring, Mahinmi is also has skills and i think playing with the starters will emphasize his advantages and hide his weakness, playing with the starters will take away pressure off of him.

Do you honestly think Mahinmi being on the court for 20-25 minutes last night would have changed the outcome? Sorry, I don't see it.

[the crimson blur]

I'm not in the thread starter head but I don't think his reaction is only based on the Bulls game. At least, mine isn't.

Most of Spurs players have been in the league for years and you know how they will play. When you look at the 10 players in Spurs' rotation, Spurs won't be a top3 defensive team in the league.

See, this is what I don't get. We may be the most talented defensive team in the league. The Rondo, KG, and Perkins combo is the only one that comes close in my mind. They may very well be a better defensive team than us by year's end simply due to their experience with one another, but talent-wise, we are on par with them. What exactly about a Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Gregg Popovich, George Hill, Antonio McDyess defense do you doubt?

[Ibanezsr]

Agree eric but they just were more athletic than us and they gave more hustle on defense.

What did you expect? It was Bulls season opener in front of a home crowd and Spurs played the night before (Not arriving to Chicago until 2 AM). They got beat because their legs were gone. I expected nothing from SA on their 1st back to back playing a team that hasnt played yet. All shots were flat (Jefferson especially) and SA was beat in the hustle category... It's not like they played bad defense. Chi shot 41% for the game and scored 92 points. Can't ask more on defense effort except for better rebounding but when your legs aren't conditioned yet that is hard to do...

Bonner isnt a problem starting but Finley is. Bonner can hold his own defensively. and I would rather see Bonner with Duncan next to him than Blair (if Bonner came off the bench)

So chalk last night's loss up to unconditioned legs.... plain and simple... And having Blair pick up 2 quick fouls in the 1st half didn't help...

[Bruno]

What exactly about a Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Gregg Popovich, George Hill, Antonio McDyess defense do you doubt?

Ginobili and McDyess are nowhere near great defender and Hill is your backup PG.

When you look at this year's and last year's Spurs roster, it's quite unlikely that Spurs will be significantly better than last year on the defensive end. They should be good but not great.

[Blackjack]

Maybe I didn't do a good enough clarifying my OP for some of you, so I'll see if I can make this a little clearer.

The point wasn't about one game or an utter ineptitude of one player. Some seem to have gathered that I believe Bonner doesn't do an adequate job, for the most part, defensively and that he somehow holds the key to the Spurs' championship aspirations; which I don't.

This was really just a confirmation of something I've believed all along.

The Spurs have huge question marks in the area of a stopper on the wing and another defensive big; that's if you expect this team to be winning a title.

Let me see if I can address a couple of the points I've seen made here..

First off, Bonner.

Does he get to his spots, put in the effort and generally make the opponent take a contested shot?

Yeah, for the most part he does. And if that's all you expect and feel you need from an aging Duncan counterpart, well, good luck with that.

See, some too often get caught up in the minutia to see the actual bigger picture. Making arguments about someones adequacy only negates the bigger question and worries. Duncan, at this point in his career, needs the defensive burden lessened on him. The old status quo just isn't feasible anymore. You can't expect him to be your sole shot blocker and defensive anchor, while remaining the force he needs to be offensively for the team to win at the highest level. The guy needs to be fresh and healthy come playoff time or you're going to see another Division Championship and early ouster.

Bonner and Blair aren't your answer to lessening the burden defensively and 'Dyess even if an upgrade, is thirty-five, in need of managed-minutes and only a solid defensive counterpart for Duncan; he's actually a step down compared to KT when it comes to actually defending the post.

Since I mentioned Blair, lets go to that point.

I stated early on that DeJuan should be watching as much tape on Chuck Hayes as possible. They're of a similar size and center of gravity, and there's really no one better than Hayes in the post defensively at his size.

But becoming that kind of player is going to take time. Blair's never been the great defender I've seen mentioned. He's got great feet and strength, and those long arms will only help in his quest to become a solid defender, but he's also a notoriously foul-prone player who also happens to be a rookie; pinning your hopes on Blair being the answer defensively, this year, after watching the Rockets success last year, just isn't all that wise or even fair to DeJuan.

Blair should be looked at as an X-factor coming off the bench and asked to be nothing more than what he is; a huge asset on the boards and on the offense, but a defensive liability against the elite-level teams.

And to the notion that: The initial defense was good, they just didn't secure the rebound.

Yeah, as the Chuckster likes to say, 'It was a successful surgery but the patient died.'

Like I mentioned in my OP and made mention to in one of my following posts, the Spurs are going to be a pretty solid defensive team looking at the numbers. They've got Duncan, a great system based on playing the percentages, and an attention to detail that will aid them on their way to being among the top of the league defensively, by the numbers, at the end of the year; at least in the lesser points allowed category.

What seems inevitable, if things remain the same, is that the Spurs will have a hard time defending the initial attack on the perimeter with Jefferson and Finley setting the tone defensively to start games, and Duncan will be asked to carry too much of the load defensively playing alongside a defender and rebounder the quality of Bonner.

I understand Pop's starting of Bonner and Finley, a point I obviously didn't do a great job of highlighting in my OP, but the end-game is what worries me; not a regular-season game or stat that will be rendered meaningless come April and May.

The Jeff Foster idea is a solid one, but I'd still like the Spurs to wait until the deadline and see if anyone else becomes available. But as Bruno mentioned, the acquisition of Foster would include the departure of Finley, which would in turn have the Spurs playing a much better defender at the wing; Hairston preferably.

Bottom line, the two best Spurs perimeter defenders I've seen have been Hill and Hairston. The former plays a backup role and the latter's inactive and not even guaranteed to be on the team for the remainder of the year.

So while RJ is solid on the wing defensively, if not fleet of foot, and Manu is at least adequate on the ball, Mason and Finley just aren't going to aid you all that much on that end.

Their first line of defense on the perimeter, the players receiving the majority of the minutes, is at minimum suspect and their last line of defense on the interior consists of one guy over 6-10 who's an actual shot blocker; not an ideal scenario when the gate's open and the back door is believed to be unlocked.

Big picture, folks.

Take a look at the competition the Spurs have to just get out of the West, both in terms of perimeter and front court-play, and I'm not sure how you can honestly make a convincing argument the Spurs have what they need defensively.

[EricB]

NO defencive problem? Did you even watch last nights game? If so I hope you don't honestly think there was no defencive problem. I have more faith in you then that bro.


No there wasn't a defensive problem to get freaked out about.

Rotations missed on pick and rolls and what not happen this time of year.

Hell there is zero chemistry between the guys cause they have all played MAYBE MAYBE 1 game together.

The defense you guys are wanting doesn't come until about February when they've had LOTS of time together and thats barring an injury that sets a player back a few weeks like a Mason, Manu or Dice.

[EricB]

I think your problem is as the OP, is your making the assumption that Finley and Bonner will start ALL YEAR. They aren't most likely.

Bonner COULD, its a possibility, but most likely Manu will start when he's ready.

Also even if said players START, if they are bad then you sub em out, that simple like Pop has done the first two games. IMO he's had a damn quick hook on Finley in the first quarters.

[Mel_13]

Maybe I didn't do a good enough clarifying my OP for some of you, so I'll see if I can make this a little clearer.


Understood you perfectly the first time around.

[EricB]

Ibanezsr makes a great point. The Bulls got to alot of extra spots quicker and had a little extra fire in the stomach due to, it is their home opener. Same with the Spurs.

The Spurs aren't as bad as they showed last night, nor are they as good YET as they showed opening night. I think the first couple months will show they are in between for now.

[Blackjack]

I think your problem is as the OP, is your making the assumption that Finley and Bonner will start ALL YEAR. They aren't most likely.

Bonner COULD, its a possibility, but most likely Manu will start when he's ready.

Also even if said players START, if they are bad then you sub em out, that simple like Pop has done the first two games. IMO he's had a damn quick hook on Finley in the first quarters.

I don't see Bonner starting all year. Like I mentioned earlier, he's basically an innings-eater. Most likely 'Dyess will take over once he's in shape and Pop deem's it wise to start really giving him the lions share of minutes.

The point is, if what I believe is to be true, the Spurs' room for error is razor thin on the front line. Pop's fully aware of how taxing it is on Tim to play alongside Bonner for extended amounts of time, but he must feel it's a necessary evil to contend with in order to have both Tim and 'Dyess at the finish line. Pop's been praised for his uncanny ability to have the pulse of his team, but he's definitely going to need it to know exactly when to pull the trigger as he tries to buy time and massage minutes.

Rotations obviously shorten come playoff-time, but you still need three, and preferably four, solid bigs.

The question is whether the Spurs have their third and fourth quality bigs to be depended upon, playing against the Lakers or even Blazers; that's assuming their first two are healthy and not worn down by the time they get there.

[Blackjack]

Understood you perfectly the first time around.

Are you sure?

Because I'll fight through the carpal-tunnel if I have to; I'm a message board soldier.:hat

[ElNono]

The Spurs aren't as bad as they showed last night, nor are they as good YET as they showed opening night. I think the first couple months will show they are in between for now.

Defensively, we were very poor on opening night.
Something that was pointed out not just by some of us, but Pop himself.

Which is exactly why threads like this come to be.

[Mel_13]

Are you sure?

Because I'll fight through the carpal-tunnel if I have to; I'm a message board soldier.:hat

Yep, I distilled that first post down to one name, Foster.

The problem with clarifying one long, detailed, nuanced post with another equally as long is that you haven't made it any easier for those that lost you the first time around.

You might want to try shorter posts, bullet points, and, if nothing else works, cartoons.

[EricB]

Defensively, we were very poor on opening night.
Something that was pointed out not just by some of us, but Pop himself.

Which is exactly why threads like this come to be.

First half like last night they were good defensively and they relaxed in the second half.

Last night they were good defensively in the first half but not as good in the second half but BETTER than they were in the second half of the game vs New Orleans.

[EricB]

Yep, I distilled that first post down to one name, Foster.

The problem with clarifying one long, detailed, nuanced post with another equally as long is that you haven't made it any easier for those that lost you the first time around.

You might want to try shorter posts, bullet points, and, if nothing else works, cartoons.

:lol good stuff on the last sentence, that being said, trying to acquire Foster is a fight in futility. First off, is he available? Doubtful the Pacers are quite fond of him. Second, would he fix the problems? Again I have my doubts, I just dont think he's someone that does anything better than guys like McDyess or Ratliff.

[Blackjack]

Yep, I distilled that first post down to one name, Foster.

The problem with clarifying one long, detailed, nuanced post with another equally as long is that you haven't made it any easier for those that lost you the first time around.

You might want to try shorter posts, bullet points, and, if nothing else works, cartoons.

Cartoons...

I like the way you think.:tu

But since I'm not savvy enough with this here computer or the interwebs, I'll just have to settle for my FAIL.:lol

[ElNono]

Cartoons...

I like the way you think.:tu

But since I'm not savvy enough with this here computer or the interwebs, I'll just have to settle for my FAIL.:lol

It's not that hard... see, like this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_imagearticle2505.article_0.jpg

[Blackjack]

^ ^ Blackjack approves.:tu :lol

[Mel_13]

:lol good stuff on the last sentence, that being said, trying to acquire Foster is a fight in futility. First off, is he available? Doubtful the Pacers are quite fond of him. Second, would he fix the problems? Again I have my doubts, I just dont think he's someone that does anything better than guys like McDyess or Ratliff.

I wouldn't make a trade anytime soon. They really don't know what they have, yet. By the time they play the Lakers in January, the answers to several critical questions should be clearer:

1. How's Tim holding up?

2. How's Manu holding up?

3. How well have Dice and RJ been integrated into the system? (I'm not too worried about this one).

4. Has Blair shown enough to be trusted with rotation minutes come the playoffs?

5. Have one of Bogans or Hairston emerged as a defensive wing?

and

6. Who are the most desperate teams and what players are they looking to unload?


As to Foster v. Dice and Ratliff. We need someone in addition to Tim and Dice capable of playing 20-25 mpg. I don't believe Ratliff is that man. While Foster may not be much better for short bursts, he is, IMO, a legitimate rotation big while Ratliff is not.

I'd still wait until January at the earliest. Foster may never be on the market and a much better player may be available.

[Mel_13]

It's not that hard... see, like this:


:lol

[Flux451]

:huh

Everyone knows the real season for the Spurs doesn't start until Pop says so. Late november?

[kobyz]

Do you honestly think Mahinmi being on the court for 20-25 minutes last night would have changed the outcome? Sorry, I don't see it.

i just know that he need to play, we need to use his size, athleticism, youth and energy.

[the crimson blur]

The Spurs have huge question marks in the area of a stopper on the wing and another defensive big; that's if you expect this team to be winning a title.

No they don't. The talent we have accumulated for both perimeter and interior D is some of the best in the league. I hate to keep harping on this point but what you are saying here just doesn't make sense. The Cavs were spectacular defensively last year with half the talent running our same exact schemes (with two undersized guards too!). The Magic were great too and all they had was Dwight effectively. We have so much more than that but you want every single player to be a defensive stopper somehow. No team in the league is like that.


Does he get to his spots, put in the effort and generally make the opponent take a contested shot?

Yeah, for the most part he does. And if that's all you expect and feel you need from an aging Duncan counterpart, well, good luck with that.

Now thats silly. Duncan's knees aren't going to give out because Bonner is playing rather than Dice. I also think you are vastly underestimating Tim Duncan and overestimating his decline. He won a championship with a much worse defensive frontline just 2 years ago, and he can do it again.

But you are making it sound like we have no frontline players that can help Tim defend. Tim has more help in that respect than he has ever had. Once again, you are making an argument based on the assumption of the lack of talent in our players and I simply can't agree.


Since I mentioned Blair, lets go to that point.

I stated early on that DeJuan should be watching as much tape on Chuck Hayes as possible. They're of a similar size and center of gravity, and there's really no one better than Hayes in the post defensively at his size.

But becoming that kind of player is going to take time. Blair's never been the great defender I've seen mentioned. He's got great feet and strength, and those long arms will only help in his quest to become a solid defender, but he's also a notoriously foul-prone player who also happens to be a rookie; pinning your hopes on Blair being the answer defensively, this year, after watching the Rockets success last year, just isn't all that wise or even fair to DeJuan.

Blair should be looked at as an X-factor coming off the bench and asked to be nothing more than what he is; a huge asset on the boards and on the offense, but a defensive liability against the elite-level teams.

You want us to ask him to be a defensive liability? No, DeJuan has to improve and he will. I didn't say he will be Chuck Hayes just yet. But I do think he will be a solid defender by years end.


And to the notion that: The initial defense was good, they just didn't secure the rebound.

Yeah, as the Chuckster likes to say, 'It was a successful surgery but the patient died.'

Like I mentioned in my OP and made mention to in one of my following posts, the Spurs are going to be a pretty solid defensive team looking at the numbers. They've got Duncan, a great system based on playing the percentages, and an attention to detail that will aid them on their way to being among the top of the league defensively, by the numbers, at the end of the year; at least in the lesser points allowed category.

What are you measuring our defense with then? How are we going to be a great defensive team by the numbers but bad otherwise? What?

And it does matter that we defended the initial possession well. That means we rotated well and played the defensive schemes correctly. Offensive rebounds are really hard to defend against because, as I said, the rebounder usually already has position. We ran the defensive schemes correctly. Thats a good thing.


the Spurs will have a hard time defending the initial attack on the perimeter with Jefferson and Finley setting the tone defensively to start games

Jefferson played very well defensively.


Bottom line, the two best Spurs perimeter defenders I've seen have been Hill and Hairston.

Oh come on now. Hype on the new guys gets so out of hand sometimes. If you think Hairston is a better perimeter defender than Richard Jefferson, Tony Parker, or Manu Ginobili, you don't know basketball.

[Blackjack]

Well, the crimson blur, I'm going to try an heed my friend Mel_13's advice.

Who guards Kobe and the Lakers' front line; successfully that is?

Big picture.

[2Cleva]

If you don't mind a Laker fan interjecting I have to say great posts by the OP and conversation by all that evolved from it.


Well, the crimson blur, I'm going to try an heed my friend Mel_13's advice.

Who guards Kobe and the Lakers' front line; successfully that is?

Big picture.

You shouldn't have to break it down, I understood that from the very beginning. That's the bottomline and I'm curious to how SA addresses it. Without a roster move, SA is respected by LA but not feared anymore than anyone else in the West for those very 2 reasons.

Can't stop Kobe and can't stop their front line, how possibly does SA beat the Lakers and go for their 5th? A shootout is a failure and they don't have the players to do what SA has traditionally did best.

[the crimson blur]

Well, the crimson blur, I'm going to try an heed my friend Mel_13's advice.

Who guards Kobe and the Lakers' front line; successfully that is?

Big picture.

Tony Parker - Derek Fisher
George Hill - Kobe Bryant
Manu Ginobili - Kobe Bryant
Richard Jefferson - Ron Artest/Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan - Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum
Antonio McDyess/DeJuan Blair/Matt Bonner - Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom

Really not that hard. Lakers have plenty of players we can hide our liabilities on if we need to (Powell, Fisher, Farmar, Walton, Vujacic).

[2Cleva]

Tony Parker - Derek Fisher
George Hill - Kobe Bryant
Manu Ginobili - Kobe Bryant
Richard Jefferson - Ron Artest/Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan - Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum
Antonio McDyess/DeJuan Blair/Matt Bonner - Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom

Really not that hard. Lakers have plenty of players we can hide our liabilities on if we need to (Powell, Fisher, Farmar, Walton, Vujacic).

Come playoff time - Powell, Farmar, and Vujacic will barely play. You talk of hiding against bench players except for Fisher.

SA has smaller, less powerful. less athletic players at each key position you listed. That's trouble.

[ElNono]

First half like last night they were good defensively and they relaxed in the second half.

Last night they were good defensively in the first half but not as good in the second half but BETTER than they were in the second half of the game vs New Orleans.

First quarter of the NOH game they were good. The last 3 quarters we gave up 26, 29 and 28.

I agree we actually improved a bit against Chicago. We gave up 22, 25, 27 and 18. The first and last quarters being respectable.

We need to keep it around 20 on a consistent basis in order to match the defensive performance of Spurs teams that won championships.
On that topic, I agree with the OP that we can't do that with the players that have been getting the bulk of the minutes so far. What I don't know is if we need to get different personnel or simply letting Blair, Dice learn the system and maybe playing Hill more at the two, or Hairston would actually help.

[ElNono]

Tony Parker - Derek Fisher
George Hill - Kobe Bryant
Manu Ginobili - Kobe Bryant
Richard Jefferson - Ron Artest/Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan - Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum
Antonio McDyess/DeJuan Blair/Matt Bonner - Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom

Really not that hard. Lakers have plenty of players we can hide our liabilities on if we need to (Powell, Fisher, Farmar, Walton, Vujacic).

Where's Finley on your take? You know he's going to play AT THE VERY LEAST, 15 minutes... Same for Bonner....

[the crimson blur]

Where's Finley on your take? You know he's going to play AT THE VERY LEAST, 15 minutes... Same for Bonner....

Play Finley/Mason against their shooters and bench. In the playoffs, Manu and Jefferson will be playing 35+ minutes anyway, so I doubt there will be much room for them anyhow, especially how George has been shooting/defending.


Come playoff time - Powell, Farmar, and Vujacic will barely play. You talk of hiding against bench players except for Fisher.

SA has smaller, less powerful. less athletic players at each key position you listed. That's trouble.

We don't really give up any power/athleticism/size in the 2 or the 4 matchup (Duncan/Pau and Manu-RJ-Hill/Kobe), the two most important matchups listed. We outquick you in the other 3 matchups (except center, where we have utility instead) while you outpower us. If you ignore the clusterfuck that is the 2 and 4 positions, you get the Spurs winning the 1 position by a tremendous amount, the Lakers winning the 5 position, and a close match at the 3 (I'd say RJ wins but hey, if you think Artest is that good, its your call).

I think we matchup very well with the Lakers as is. The Lakers' usual frontcourt advantage is negated by the fact that we have the best big man on the court. Tony Parker is going to ravage the Laker PGs, especially with Ariza gone. Jefferson, Hill, Manu, Tony, Blair, and Duncan will rack up fouls on the Laker frontline. We are (or were) the best defensive rebounding team in the league against a team who boast offensive rebounding as one of its major advantages. Bonner's outside shooting, as well as Dice and Blair's midrange, will stretch the longer, slower Laker lineups out so Duncan and Parker can just attack the remaining big in pick and roll. We have excellent 3 pt shooters against a team known for blowing 3 pt coverages. Hill, Manu, and RJ give Kobe three distinct, difficult opponents who will give him different looks and styles, hopefully disrupting him; we have arguably the best Kobe defense of any contender, though really, only so much can be done.

...there are a lot of things going for us against the Lakers.

[Blackjack]

Tony Parker - Derek Fisher
George Hill - Kobe Bryant
Manu Ginobili - Kobe Bryant
Richard Jefferson - Ron Artest/Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan - Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum
Antonio McDyess/DeJuan Blair/Matt Bonner - Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom

Really not that hard. Lakers have plenty of players we can hide our liabilities on if we need to (Powell, Fisher, Farmar, Walton, Vujacic).

I agree.:tu

It's not hard to put names next to each other and pretend that it somehow favors your favorite team.

If the Spurs are one-hundred percent healthy and playing at the peak of their game, they'd still have to hope for an Artest implosion, a significant injury, or just something that prevents the Lakers from being the Lakers to prevail, as it now stands.

The moves the Spurs made, as Pop stated, put them back in the game but it didn't put them in the proverbial driver's seat.

Kobe is the most dominant player between the two teams at this point and Pau, while still not Duncan, can play him even enough to where the Bynum and Odom tandem can really prove to be a difference-maker.

Jefferson's going to have a hard time against Artest, Kobe matches up well with Manu, and their front line is formidable enough to slow or nullify Duncan; Parker wouldn't only have to play like an All-Star but an MVP to overcome those facts.

I think in order for the Spurs to get by the Lakers, they need Manu to be that player he was during the '08 season; as much as I love Tony, Manu's the only guy I see capable of staring down Kobe as the closer. But if Manu's forced to guard Kobe and/or Artest for extended periods of time, I don't find that a likely scenario.

Whether you believe it or not, Hill and Hairston are the Spurs' two best perimeter, more specifically, on-ball defenders on the team. RJ lacks the quickness, Manu's a better weakside and team defender and Bogans, well, you could make an argument for him over Hairston, but I wouldn't.

Hill's a backup point-guard that not only won't get the minutes, but is much too small to see extended time on Kobe. I like the idea of RJ on Artest much more than Kobe, but that would put Manu on to Kobe, which doesn't seem all that ideal if Manu really is the key for the Spurs to get by the Lakers; like I said before, Tony might very well prove capable of doing what Manu's done, and he definitely is the one with the match up advantage, but I've just yet to be sold.

The Spurs' room for error, which has seemed to be the case over the last couple of years, is just very small.

[the crimson blur]

I agree.:tu

It's not hard to put names next to each other and pretend that it somehow favors your favorite team.

I didn't just put names next to one another. Look at my last post :D


If the Spurs are one-hundred percent healthy and playing at the peak of their game, they'd still have to hope for an Artest implosion, a significant injury, or just something that prevents the Lakers from being the Lakers to prevail, as it now stands.

Based on talent alone? Chemistry, maybe. We still have to get there. But on talent and on paper, I think we match up well with them. I don't think an Artest implosion or a significant injury is required whatsoever for us to beat them. The fact that you even think that, especially this early, is depressing.


Kobe is the most dominant player between the two teams

In the regular season? Probably. In the playoffs? We'll see. Never underestimate Tim Duncan.


Jefferson's going to have a hard time against Artest, Kobe matches up well with Manu, and their front line is formidable enough to slow or nullify Duncan; Parker wouldn't only have to play like an All-Star but an MVP to overcome those facts.

See, we always seem to come to fundamental differences here. You can't nullify Tim Duncan. Thats not how Tim Duncan works. I'm also curious on what basis you go on in thinking RJ and Manu are going to do so poorly in their matchups.


Whether you believe it or not, Hill and Hairston are the Spurs' two best perimeter, more specifically, on-ball defenders on the team. RJ lacks the quickness, Manu's a better weakside and team defender and Bogans, well, you could make an argument for him over Hairston, but I wouldn't.

I agree on Hill. Give me any reason to believe that Hairston is better than proven guys like Manu, Jefferson, and Parker.


Hill's a backup point-guard that not only won't get the minutes, but is much too small to see extended time on Kobe.

He saw minutes on Kobe last season. And I firmly believe Pop will make a point of putting George in the rotation this season. He won't have to go out of the way to do it either, George will earn the minutes himself.


The Spurs' room for error, which has seemed to be the case over the last couple of years, is just very small.

Wouldn't be exciting otherwise. :D

[ElNono]

Play Finley/Mason against their shooters and bench. In the playoffs, Manu and Jefferson will be playing 35+ minutes anyway, so I doubt there will be much room for them anyhow, especially how George has been shooting/defending.

I think you're in denial. I also think you're in denial to the fact that Tim, while being a true warrior, a fighter and undeniably the best power forward to ever play the game, is also on the downside of his career. He needs all the help he can get on defense.

[Drewlius]

Our defense was great last night, our offensive flow was awful. We simply couldn't hit any shots.

[the crimson blur]

I think you're in denial. I also think you're in denial to the fact that Tim, while being a true warrior, a fighter and undeniably the best power forward to ever play the game, is also on the downside of his career. He needs all the help he can get on defense.

Oh I know he is in decline. But at the same time, Tim just came off a 24.4 PER season (including injuries) and, more recently, a wonderfully dominant game. I know he could use help, but really, this is a guy who won with Fab Oberto, Elson, and a declining Horry just 2 years ago. His game hasn't fallen off a cliff, far from it, so I believe he can still be dominant defensively, especially since he does have better help than ever before.

If you are taking offense to my "never underestimate Tim Duncan" line, well, just think of every time you did.

[ElNono]

Oh I know he is in decline. ... Tim just came off a 24.4 PER season (including injuries) and more recently...

...a first round exit. First ever on his career.

Was he hurt last season? Sure.
How do you try to minimize that happening again? Giving him help.

[the crimson blur]

...a first round exit. First ever on his career.

Was he hurt last season? Sure.
How do you try to minimize that happening again? Giving him help.

I already said that Duncan having help is an asset...all I said was that people are making too big of a deal of it; having Bonner at 25 mpg and Dice at 23 mpg rather than vice versa won't make a difference.

Whatever, we are going in circles now. Some people hold a more optimistic view of the season's outlook and others a more pessimistic one. We will see who's right by season's end.