Spurs Look Winded in Loss to Bulls

[nkdlunch]

Spurs Look Winded in Loss to Bulls
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/10/30/spurs-look-winded-in-loss-to-bulls/

You're going to have to forgive us here in the early season for a bit. If we don't report on trends that are developing, we're ignoring what we're seeing. If we do tell you what we see, we're over-emphasizing games that are so young in this season that they can't even legally get into a screening of New Moon.

Basically, that's my way of imploring you to remember that we do take these things with a gigantic mountain of salt, but here's what happened. And trust me, the Spurs are going to want to brush this one off.

The San Antonio Spurs consider themselves a championship contender. Loaded with talent both young and old, they consider themselves ready to compete with the Lakers for the Western Conference crown. But to do so they'll need to get the highest seed possible to face weaker opponents in early rounds. And in order to get that high seed, they'll need to win back-to-back games on the road. On Thursday they looked like that might be more of a challenge than they're ready for at this early stage, as the Spurs fell to the Chicago Bulls 92-85.

It was a night where the Spurs shot 19 percent from 3-point land, shot only 42 percent overall, and were beaten on the offensive glass, 15-8. But the most glaring thing you came away with in this game was that for a team that was supposed to have reloaded to get rid of that "old, tired" description that's hung around them for years, even when they were winning championships, the Spurs were blown away by the Bulls' speed, energy, and athleticism.

Tim Duncan did what he does, scoring 28 points on 19 shots with 16 boards and 3 blocks, a simply sublime performance. But Manu Ginobili was the only other Spur in double digits with 12, while Tony Parker shot 4-11, Richard Jefferson 3-9, and Roger Mason 0-4. Rookie sensation and instant hype machine DeJuan Blair had only 6 points and 4 rebounds in 12 minutes, good for a rookie, but close to what he'll probably produce night in and night out.

The Spurs were unable to close off penetration lanes, unable to block out Joakim Noah and Luol Deng (10 offensive rebounds combined), and unable to lock down Derrick Rose, who finished with 13 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists with just one turnover. The Bulls consistently were able to produce quality ball rotations leading to open three pointers. If the Bulls had shot better than their putrid 19% from the arc, the difference could have been


greater. As it was, Luol Deng looked capable of filling in some of the gap from Ben Gordon's departure, Derrick Rose looked like he was progressing, Joakim Noah is a top 10 center in the league right now, and Kirk Hinrich provides both shooting and defensive toughness with quality minutes.

Perhaps most startling is that the Spurs, normally so resolved mentally, could have such a flat night so early. Just last night they walloped the Hornets, running them ragged and dominating them defensively. But against a Bulls squad who arguably have a better roster 1-10 than the Hornets, the Spurs looked not only slow and languid, but lost.

I'd expect an unpleasant conversation happened in the locker room after Thursday's game and that the Spurs will answer. But the loss might also be best served as a reminder to the Spurs not to believe the hype, and that like they always preach, they've got to keep pounding that rock with the hammer if they want to collect the one for the thumb.

[DJB]

Irrelevant.

[EricB]

So the article says "we dont understand how they can beat a team like New Orleans but lose to a better team than the Hornets like the Bulls"

[Mel_13]

So the article says "we dont understand how they can beat a team like New Orleans but lose to a better team than the Hornets like the Bulls"

That's what it says


Just last night they walloped the Hornets, running them ragged and dominating them defensively. But against a Bulls squad who arguably have a better roster 1-10 than the Hornets, the Spurs looked not only slow and languid, but lost.

[neboat]

I didn't get the chance to watch this game...but will our offense be once again dictated by our ability to hit the 3 pointer? Last yr it seemed our offense really depended on the 3 pointer. If we started missing, our offense suffered greatly and we'll just chuck up even more 3's. I'm hoping it won't be more of the same this year. With the addition of Jefferson and a healthy Manu, I hope we will have a more balanced offense.

[nkdlunch]

good question. I hate living by the 3.

another thing, I thought we wanted to go back to Spurs Defense of 2003,2005

How are we gonna accomplish that with Finley and Bonner playing 30mpg each???

[SamoanTD]

i understand bonner becuz u cant have bonner and blair out on the floor at the same time there will be no interior defence with them in there.

[Spursfan092120]

I hate living by the 3.

I was saying that in the chat room last night...with the roster we have, and with Tony, Manu, and RJ as playmakers, we shouldn't have to live by the 3, and hopefully we can change that.

[EricB]

Well when the players listed don't drive to the hole but live by the three coughmanucough.......

[Mel_13]

I was saying that in the chat room last night...with the roster we have, and with Tony, Manu, and RJ as playmakers, we shouldn't have to live by the 3, and hopefully we can change that.

Just curious.

The Spurs have averaged right at 19.7 attempts per game the past two seasons. NBA average the past two seasons is 18.1 attempts per game.

So what's the right number?

[nkdlunch]

Just curious.

The Spurs have averaged right at 19.7 attempts per game the past two seasons. NBA average the past two seasons is 18.1 attempts per game.

So what's the right number?

The worst offensive rebounding team in the league should attempt way, way less than the NBA average

[galvatron3000]

good question. I hate living by the 3.

another thing, I thought we wanted to go back to Spurs Defense of 2003,2005

How are we gonna accomplish that with Finley and Bonner playing 30mpg each???

:elephant

[Mel_13]

The worst offensive rebounding team in the league should attempt way, way less than the NBA average

Sorry, but I don't follow you. If you're only going to get one shot, shouldn't 3pt jump shots be favored over 2 pt jump shots, assuming that they are converted at the recent rates? Most possessions for all teams end in a jump shot.

[Chomag]

Sorry, but I don't follow you. If you're only going to get one shot, shouldn't 3pt jump shots be favored over 2 pt jump shots, assuming that they are converted at the recent rates? Most possessions for all teams end in a jump shot.

The 3 pt shot is the lowest % shot in the game of basketball I hate to live by that. I know the opponents love that we do though.

[DPG21920]

The 3 pt shot is the lowest % shot in the game of basketball I hate to live by that. I know the opponents love that we do though.

Yes, but when you factor in the extra point and look at true shooting %, it makes the 3 point shot hit at a good rate (which the Spurs do) better than the 2 point shot.

[Mel_13]

The 3 pt shot is the lowest % shot in the game of basketball I hate to live by that. I know the opponents love that we do though.

A team that shoots the 3pt at a high rate, scores more points per shot. You can't compare 3pt pct to 2pt pct without accounting for the extra point.

Chew on this:

There are 15 playoff series every season. Last year, only three series were won by teams in the bottom half of 3pts attempted. In 2007-08, only ONE of 15 playoff series was won by a team that took less than league average for 3pts attempted.

[ElNono]

Chew on this:

We won 4 titles being in the top 3 of best defensive teams in the league.

[phyzik]

A team that shoots the 3pt at a high rate, scores more points per shot. You can't compare 3pt pct to 2pt pct without accounting for the extra point.

Chew on this:

There are 15 playoff series every season. Last year, only three series were won by teams in the bottom half of 3pts attempted. In 2007-08, only ONE of 15 playoff series was won by a team that took less than league average for 3pts attempted.

Thats all fine and dandy... until you start shooting those 3's at a 19% clip and continue to attempt them... In economics its called Diminishing returns.

[DPG21920]

Thats all fine and dandy... until you start shooting those 3's at a 19% clip and continue to attempt them... In economics its called Diminishing returns.

Well, if you look at the law of averages, then you would understand.

[Mel_13]

Chew on this:

We won 4 titles being in the top 3 of best defensive teams in the league.

Ok. Has nothing to do with the question posed, but Ok.

I'll ask again. The Spurs have averaged 19.7 3pt attempts over the last two seasons. The league average has been 18.1 attempts.

It is one thing to complain about the number of attempts. I'd like to see someone, anyone make a case for a drastically reduced number.

[quentin_compson]

Yes, but when you factor in the extra point and look at true shooting %, it makes the 3 point shot hit at a good rate (which the Spurs do) better than the 2 point shot.

:tu


I also did have the impression we took too many threes, but most of them were good looks at least. Tony, Manu and RJ need to drive more, though. Tony didn't look good yesterday, to be honest. Hopefully, it was just an off night and not a sign that there was more to his hard fall in the Hornets game than there seemed to be.


By the way: Noah a top 10 center? I don't think so. He had a good game, though.

[word]

When I heard sir Charles say this I laughed out loud. Winded the second game of the season...?

bizarre

[phyzik]

Ok. Has nothing to do with the question posed, but Ok.

I'll ask again. The Spurs have averaged 19.7 3pt attempts over the last two seasons. The league average has been 18.1 attempts.

It is one thing to complain about the number of attempts. I'd like to see someone, anyone make a case for a drastically reduced number.

First, let me say I dont mind our attempt average, especially when they are falling.

The problem lies on those nights when they are not falling. It all stems from the way the Spurs play defense. We prefer to pop off a shot and run back to get a set defense and prevent a fast break for the other team. The problem with that is we inherently get no second chance points.

[ElNono]

It is one thing to complain about the number of attempts. I'd like to see someone, anyone make a case for a drastically reduced number.

I'll make a case. When your top 3 point shooter is your Center, you end up basically giving up 50% of your possibility of grabbing an offensive board.
So I don't necessarily disagree with taking that many threes, but I do take issue with taking that many threes with your Center.

Take a look at the champs, the Lakers. They took 18.5 attempts, but they also ranked 3rd in offensive rebounding, at 12.4. Spurs? Dead last at 8.9.

[oligarchy]

So, the rationale shouldn't be take less 3pt attempts, and be slightly above average. They should attempt many more, and be way above average on 3pt attempts.

[DPG21920]

I'll make a case. When your top 3 point shooter is your Center, you end up basically giving up 50% of your possibility of grabbing an offensive board.
So I don't necessarily disagree with taking that many threes, but I do take issue with taking that many threes with your Center.

Take a look at the champs, the Lakers. They took 18.5 attempts, but they also ranked 3rd in offensive rebounding, at 12.4. Spurs? Dead last at 8.9.

How do you fix that though? Bonner's offensive rebounding would not improve if he did not hit 3's. It is about personnel, the Spurs have no other options really.

If you take Bonner off the 3 point line, the no improvement you see in offensive rebounding along with the drastic decrease in 3 point shooting would not be smart.

[neboat]

Having 3pt as a weapon is great and essential...but we shouldn't rely on it as much as we have in the past. The 3pt does not put pressure on the other team in terms of getting to the FT line (the highest percentage shot), putting fouls on the other team, getting to the bonus... The 3pt can be naturalized if the other team is committed to running out to our shooters, especially since our best 3pt shooters can't really do anything with the ball once they've taken a dribble. In our championship years, the only 3pt specialists we had that I can remember is Kerr. Our other 3pt shooters brought other skills to the table: jackson (D, some playmaking), horry (defense and other intangibles), manu (playmaking), bowen (shut down D). However, bonner, mason, finley...that's three 3pt specialists that do not bring much else to the table. Add to that if manu also shoots more 3's than before, then our offense will be in trouble.

[DPG21920]

:tu


I also did have the impression we took too many threes, but most of them were good looks at least. Tony, Manu and RJ need to drive more, though. Tony didn't look good yesterday, to be honest. Hopefully, it was just an off night and not a sign that there was more to his hard fall in the Hornets game than there seemed to be.


By the way: Noah a top 10 center? I don't think so. He had a good game, though.

I never said he was a top 10 center. I said I would trade Blair for him right now and he would do much more for the Spurs than Blair.

[ElNono]

How do you fix that though? Bonner's offensive rebounding would not improve if he did not hit 3's. It is about personnel, the Spurs have no other options really.

If you take Bonner off the 3 point line, the no improvement you see in offensive rebounding along with the drastic decrease in 3 point shooting would not be smart.

You play a center that can rebound, like most any other reasonable team out there, and just like what the Spurs did when they had any semblance of success playing defense (DRob, Rasho, Nazr, Horry).
Be it Dice, Rattliff, Blair, or you go out there and get somebody.

We have a ton of 3 point shooters in the perimeter: Manu, Mason, RJ, Hill, Finley. We're married with this stupidity of 'Bonner spaces the floor so Tim can operate', while nobody looks at the negatives: Tim can score 30 like last night, but if we don't rebound we're fucked anyways. We get absolutely no second-chance points. We have to overplay Tim whenever we can't buy a bucket. And all the other stuff that has been rehashed forever.

[alchemist]

Spurs Look Winded in Loss to Bulls
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/10/30/spurs-look-winded-in-loss-to-bulls/

Basically, that's my way of imploring you to remember that we do take these things with a gigantic mountain of salt, but here's what happened. And trust me, the Spurs are going to want to brush this one off.
:wakeup



off topic: (it's seems like this has happened over the last 2 years)
Spurs win = no ESPN daily dime
Spurs lose = ESPN daily dime
:lol

[nkdlunch]

Sorry, but I don't follow you. If you're only going to get one shot, shouldn't 3pt jump shots be favored over 2 pt jump shots, assuming that they are converted at the recent rates? Most possessions for all teams end in a jump shot.

wrong. The 3pt shot is the easiest to rebound compared to missed 2pt/layups. SO teams that are good offensive rebounds have the advantage of being able to attempt more, because they can get 2nd chance.

Spurs are worst offensive rebounding team so shooting many 3s which is a lower % than 2/layup, is a bad idea.

[howardcopy]

Slowwwwwwwwwww. Man ol'man, that was horrible last night.

Pop is going to have to figure out how to handle the back-to-backs better!

[Bartleby]

I was disappointed with the loss but not surprised (I had this one penciled in as an L in another thread). The bottom line is that young athletic teams have given the Spurs fits for the last few years and this year will probably be no exception, especially on the second night of a B2B.

Yes, the Spurs brought in some youth and athleticism, but this is still a roster that is built for the half court grind of the playoffs and some of the key players (i.e. Manu) are still playing themselves into shape.

[Mel_13]

I'll make a case. When your top 3 point shooter is your Center, you end up basically giving up 50% of your possibility of grabbing an offensive board.
So I don't necessarily disagree with taking that many threes, but I do take issue with taking that many threes with your Center.

Take a look at the champs, the Lakers. They took 18.5 attempts, but they also ranked 3rd in offensive rebounding, at 12.4. Spurs? Dead last at 8.9.


So we're back to Bonner. Frankly, I'm weary of that debate. I don't love Bonner or his game. My point has always been that, just as with all players on the roster, he should play the number of minutes that optimizes the team's chances to win. Right now, IMO, only Duncan and Dice are clearly better. Blair has unlimited potential, but he is most definitely a work in progress. Ratliff can't play major minutes and I don't think Haislip or Ian are NBA ready. So until a trade is made for a better player, which I have supported, we're stuck with him.

Now to your case. Blaming the offensive rebounding issues on Bonner rather than the system is not supported by the facts. The 2006-07 championship team took 19.0 3pt per game and was 3rd to last in offensive rebounding with an average of 9.3 per game. That team didn't start a 3pt shooter at center, yet the results were practically the same.

[pjjrfan]

good question. I hate living by the 3.

another thing, I thought we wanted to go back to Spurs Defense of 2003,2005

How are we gonna accomplish that with Finley and Bonner playing 30mpg each???
That's definitly has to change. But what I saw was a bunch of guys who were playing like they didn't know each other. As a whole the team looked lost and disjointed both on offense and defense. But the main thing is that the Spurs were looking for the long ball which wasn't falling and no one seemed to want to take it in and attack the paint, something the Bulls did aggressively. Thier spacing was horrible, they reminded me of the Vinnie del Negro Spurs of the late 90's before Tim.

[Mel_13]

wrong. The 3pt shot is the easiest to rebound compared to missed 2pt/layups. SO teams that are good offensive rebounds have the advantage of being able to attempt more, because they can get 2nd chance.

Spurs are worst offensive rebounding team so shooting many 3s which is a lower % than 2/layup, is a bad idea.

I will happily admit I'm wrong if you can prove that the bolded statement is true.

[Muser]

So are people still against a trade packaging Bonner/Finley for Foster?

[DPG21920]

Foster is hurt and seems to have developed a bad back problem.

[neboat]

I will happily admit I'm wrong if you can prove that the bolded statement is true.

I don't have prove, but from watching and logic it seems grabbing long rebounds is more about quickness and athleticism rather than strength and position.

[ElNono]

So we're back to Bonner. Frankly, I'm weary of that debate.

I don't blame you. But you know we'll be back to it sooner or later. :lol


Now to your case. Blaming the offensive rebounding issues on Bonner rather than the system is not supported by the facts. The 2006-07 championship team took 19.0 3pt per game and was 3rd to last in offensive rebounding with an average of 9.3 per game. That team didn't start a 3pt shooter at center, yet the results were practically the same.

Horry was a 3 point shooter. But Horry was also an overall much better defender than Bonner. I actually think this is exactly where Pop got the idea, except Bonner is nowhere near as good a defender.
But I think the biggest factor that season specifically was that you didn't have the front lines that you have now. There was no Gasol-Bynum, or Perkins-KG, or Nene-Birdman, or Oden-Aldrige. Tim was also 2 years younger and Bowen could still run with the best of them, and make up for the defensive liability that was Finley.

[EricB]

Foster is hurt and seems to have developed a bad back problem.

He's always had back problems...

[Muser]

I'm just curious, Finley and Bonner are public enemy number 1 + 2 on this board, and everyone complains about Bonners lack of rebounding and Finley sucking ass. If you trade them for Foster you get a good rebounding big next to Tim who can defend.

[SenorSpur]

Having 3pt as a weapon is great and essential...but we shouldn't rely on it as much as we have in the past. The 3pt does not put pressure on the other team in terms of getting to the FT line (the highest percentage shot), putting fouls on the other team, getting to the bonus...

I'll also add that getting the FT line is the best way of getting back into a ball game when you're behind. And you can do so without using clock.

3-pt FG are wonderful if shooters are making them. Yet, the downside is when yoiu miss, there is no quicker way to ignite a fast-break the other direction. On the road, that can be a killer.

[Mel_13]

I don't blame you. But you know we'll be back to it sooner or later. :lol



Horry was a 3 point shooter. But Horry was also an overall much better defender than Bonner. I actually think this is exactly where Pop got the idea, except Bonner is nowhere near as good a defender.
But I think the biggest factor that season specifically was that you didn't have the front lines that you have now. There was no Gasol-Bynum, or Perkins-KG, or Nene-Birdman, or Oden-Aldrige. Tim was also 2 years younger and Bowen could still run with the best of them, and make up for the defensive liability that was Finley.

All true, but the offensive rebounding was every bit as poor.

As to the Bonner debate, I think I'm out except to point out claims based on thin air instead of facts.

If we could just trade Finley and Bonner, we could move onto the next whipping boy. Wonder who that would be? Besides Pop, of course:toast

[DPG21920]

He's always had back problems...

He has played 74,77 and 75 games the last three years. I meant to the point where he could be missing some serious time.

[DPG21920]

I don't blame you. But you know we'll be back to it sooner or later. :lol



Horry was a 3 point shooter. But Horry was also an overall much better defender than Bonner. I actually think this is exactly where Pop got the idea, except Bonner is nowhere near as good a defender.
But I think the biggest factor that season specifically was that you didn't have the front lines that you have now. There was no Gasol-Bynum, or Perkins-KG, or Nene-Birdman, or Oden-Aldrige. Tim was also 2 years younger and Bowen could still run with the best of them, and make up for the defensive liability that was Finley.

Ok, but the Spurs can't just put players in they don't have. Everything is give and take.

[EricB]

He has played 74,77 and 75 games the last three years. I meant to the point where he could be missing some serious time.


Back problems are back problems.

Once you have em, your doomed.

Ask Robinson and McGrady.

[ElNono]

If we could just trade Finley and Bonner, we could move onto the next whipping boy. Wonder who that would be? Besides Pop, of course:toast

If our defense would resemble anything close to years previous to the last one, nobody would like to trade Finley and Bonner. I know I wouldn't.
The bulk of minutes on the other 3 positions are played by the big 3.
And I certainly won't throw RJ under the bus after only playing 2 games for us.

[ElNono]

Ok, but the Spurs can't just put players in they don't have. Everything is give and take.

We could start by not putting in players we do have and decrease our defensive efficiency.

[DPG21920]

That comes at a price. If you play McDyess too much too early, it might actually be a net loss come money time.

[ElNono]

That comes at a price. If you play McDyess too much too early, it might actually be a net loss come money time.

He can play 20 minutes. Blair 15, Rattliff 10, and Bonner can get the remaining 3, if necessary.

Dice actually averaged almost 30 minutes the last two seasons, where he played 78 and 62 games. And the 62 games had more to do with him sitting down after the trade than any injury.

Are we going to lose some games while Blair and Dice learn what they need to do out there? Sure. That's ok. That's what the regular season is for.

[Mel_13]

He can play 20 minutes. Blair 15, Rattliff 10, and Bonner can get the remaining 3, if necessary.



You're on record saying Tim should play 20 mpg.

Tim 20
Dice 20
Blair 15
Ratliff 10
Bonner 3

That's 68. Who plays the other 28 minutes?

[DPG21920]

Also, Blair is worse than Bonner on defense.

[ElNono]

You're on record saying Tim should play 20 mpg.

Tim 20
Dice 20
Blair 15
Ratliff 10
Bonner 3

That's 68. Who plays the other 28 minutes?

At the PF position I have:

Tim 20
Blair 10
Bonner 6

And we can play small ball for a quarter. Since Pop fell in love with it, we're going to have to put up with it regardless.


Also, Blair is worse than Bonner on defense.

Right now, sure. But we know what the ceiling is for Bonner. He isn't gonna get any better than now. We ran the entire gamut of excuses for him: He knows the system, he's been here for years, he always has been a below average defender, he is a terrible rebounder by any means, etc etc etc.

We don't know what the ceiling is for Blair. I rather he plays and learns. If he gets in foul trouble, then you trot Bonner out.
It will take time for Blair to learn, but he's young and can take the extended minutes (I'm actually having him in for 25 minutes, which is nowhere near extended minutes really).

[quentin_compson]

I never said he was a top 10 center. I said I would trade Blair for him right now and he would do much more for the Spurs than Blair.

This is a misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to you but to Matt Moore, the guy who wrote the article that got this thread started.

It's an interesting question how many minutes Dice could or should play. Between 01 and 07, he never played more than 23 mpg. But the last two years, he logged in ~30 mpg. I think we could afford to play him close to 25 and still keep him fresh enough for the playoffs.

[Interrohater]

I think it's funny that the article says that we're looking old again, but he only pointed out the dismal performances of guys who are under 30.

How many times should we rehash this same old stuff? Bonner Bonner Bonner Bonner Finley Finley Finley Finley, Pop Pop Pop Pop, etc.

It's not even out of the first week of the season! Come on guys, remember the story of the stonecutter? The Spurs are going to keep pounding away. During our 1999 Championship, we were 6-8 to start the season..1-1 means absolutely nothing.

Let's support the guys we have right now and enjoy this journey. Everytime we have a loss, we can't go calling for a trade. I saw someone (DPG?) saying to trade Dejuan Blair for Joakim Noah. wtf? He's one of the rare gems that somehow, someway fell to the Spurs almost like it was meant to be and you would rather have Noah because he (how ironic) is a proven veteran? Unbelievable.

Again, how about we try and enjoy this whole thing that's going on, because someday soon we WILL have that young, talented team that a lot of you want, with no Coach Pop, and no Matt Bonner and no Mike Finley.

And we will struggle to make the playoffs. So let's enjoy this right now, Bonner or no Bonner.

[ElNono]

I think it's funny that the article says that we're looking old again, but he only pointed out the dismal performances of guys who are under 30.

How many times should we rehash this same old stuff? Bonner Bonner Bonner Bonner Finley Finley Finley Finley, Pop Pop Pop Pop, etc.

It's not even out of the first week of the season! Come on guys, remember the story of the stonecutter? The Spurs are going to keep pounding away. During our 1999 Championship, we were 6-8 to start the season..1-1 means absolutely nothing.

Let's support the guys we have right now and enjoy this journey. Everytime we have a loss, we can't go calling for a trade. I saw someone (DPG?) saying to trade Dejuan Blair for Joakim Noah. wtf? He's one of the rare gems that somehow, someway fell to the Spurs almost like it was meant to be and you would rather have Noah because he (how ironic) is a proven veteran? Unbelievable.

Again, how about we try and enjoy this whole thing that's going on, because someday soon we WILL have that young, talented team that a lot of you want, with no Coach Pop, and no Matt Bonner and no Mike Finley.

And we will struggle to make the playoffs. So let's enjoy this right now, Bonner or no Bonner.

Don't get me wrong. And I'm pretty sure this applies to DPG and Mel too.
I'm enjoying the season very much. It's not like Pop listens to what we say here. :lol
We just have time to kill, and love to speculate. Nothing wrong with that. :toast

[Agloco]

When I heard sir Charles say this I laughed out loud. Winded the second game of the season...?

bizarre

Not bizzare at all if you followed the pre season interviews with Pop. His intent was to bring a lot of guys into the regular season a bit out of shape in order to reduce the wear and tear on them early on. Factor in that this was a BTB, and you get.........

[AussieFanKurt]

irrelevant.

+1

[AussieFanKurt]

Also, Blair is worse than Bonner on defense.

Big call but I guess he knows the Spurs defense better

[Interrohater]

Don't get me wrong. And I'm pretty sure this applies to DPG and Mel too.
I'm enjoying the season very much. It's not like Pop listens to what we say here. :lol
We just have time to kill, and love to speculate. Nothing wrong with that. :toast

:toast

[Mel_13]

Not bizzare at all if you followed the pre season interviews with Pop. His intent was to bring a lot of guys into the regular season a bit out of shape in order to reduce the wear and tear on them early on. Factor in that this was a BTB, and you get.........

Wait until next Friday when they lose to the Blazers. It's gonna be fun around here. Especially if they can't beat Utah on Thursday.

**Spurs have played in Utah on the first day of a B2B three times in the last four years. They've lost the second game all three times.

[Agloco]

Wait until next Friday when they lose to the Blazers. It's gonna be fun around here. Especially if they can't beat Utah on Thursday.

**Spurs have played in Utah on the first day of a B2B three times in the last four years. They've lost the second game all three times.

+1

I probably won't bother logging in. All I'll get is a bunch of lemmings headed off of the nearest cliff they can find.

[Dex]

For the record, the Bulls are abusing the Celtics on the offensive boards tonight, and this time they're the ones coming off the B2B. I've heard the Celtics have a pretty impressive frontcourt, too.

Not excusing anything; we can't afford to give up the boards like that. But Chicago is definitely stressing hitting the glass. We just weren't ready for it. Adjustments will be made over the long season.

[Interrohater]

+1

I probably won't bother logging in. All I'll get is a bunch of lemmings headed off of the nearest cliff they can find.

Just as in the video game, maybe we can put up some obstacles for them to run into and turn around. Say, a rumor that Bonner and Finley will be getting traded for Mehmet Okur or something similar. It'll keep them away from certain death.

[ElNono]

Just as in the video game, maybe we can put up some obstacles for them to run into and turn around. Say, a rumor that Bonner and Finley will be getting traded for Mehmet Okur or something similar. It'll keep them away from certain death.

http://presciencepr.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/856_psp_lemmings_051.jpg

[SpurNation]

This written because what was seen last night was a team that had just played the night before...got on a plane...played another game not even 18 hours later against a GOOD team that had not even played a game yet this season.

The game was close until the middle of the 3rd...even with the irregularities of the situation.

Things to work on...definately. Things that warrant major concern...NO.

[kamikazi_player]

Look at what Boston's doing to Chicago, why don't we have that kind of energy when we faced them yesterday.

[TIMMYD!]

join the chat

[Danny.Zhu]

And Bulls is being raped by Celtics right now...Are we that bad...

[pjjrfan]

Bulls look winded and slow and confused, and old on a back to back game.

[Danny.Zhu]

Look at what Boston's doing to Chicago, why don't we have that kind of energy when we faced them yesterday.

Exactly. And I believe they are older than we are so age should not be an excuse for us.

[Mel_13]

Bulls look winded and slow and confused, and old on a back to back game.

:lol

[Agloco]

Look at what Boston's doing to Chicago, why don't we have that kind of energy when we faced them yesterday.


Exactly. And I believe they are older than we are so age should not be an excuse for us.

What part of Back to Back do you two not understand? Why is that concept so hard to grasp for some folks?

[kamikazi_player]

What part of Back to Back do you two not understand? Why is that concept so hard to grasp for some folks?
It doesn't matter, do you think Lakers, Magic or Celtics use that as an excuse for losing?

[nkdlunch]

For the record, the Bulls are abusing the Celtics on the offensive boards tonight, and this time they're the ones coming off the B2B. I've heard the Celtics have a pretty impressive frontcourt, too.

Not excusing anything; we can't afford to give up the boards like that. But Chicago is definitely stressing hitting the glass. We just weren't ready for it. Adjustments will be made over the long season.

huh, the Bulls are losing by 30 to the Celts

[Agloco]

Look at what Boston's doing to Chicago, why don't we have that kind of energy when we faced them yesterday.


It doesn't matter, do you think Lakers, Magic or Celtics use that as an excuse for losing?


Indeed it does matter. Believing otherwise puts you in an alternate reality where everyone lives forever, ugly guys bang hot chicks all the time and world hunger has been solved. It's not an excuse, but an explanation. No one is going to whine about it, except fans such as yourself.

Boston isn't playing a BTB, plus they're at home. The Bulls? Yeah they're on a BTB and you can tell. They're a step behind just like the Spurs were last night. They also happen to be much younger than the Spurs.

It matters.......

[barbacoataco]

It was not only a b2b but also after the 1st game of the season and a long flight. RJ and Dice both had bad nights.

The bigger problem is I'm not sure the Spurs will ever have an elite defense with their current roster. They haven't replaced BOWEN, and when Duncan is off the floor, the low post defense is suspect. They need either Bogans or Hairston to contribute, and Blair to improve on defense. Also Ratliff would be a defensive upgrade, but his ability to play a lot of minutes is questionable.

[kamikazi_player]

Indeed it does matter. Believing otherwise puts you in an alternate reality where everyone lives forever, ugly guys bang hot chicks all the time and world hunger has been solved. It's not an excuse, but an explanation. No one is going to whine about it, except fans such as yourself.

Boston isn't playing a BTB, plus they're at home. The Bulls? Yeah they're on a BTB and you can tell. They're a step behind just like the Spurs were last night. They also happen to be much younger than the Spurs.

It matters.......
I'm not whining faggot. I'm just saying that we didn't have enough energy to keep up with the Bulls. Lakers and Celtics play back-to-back and they have no problems, sure their energy is not as high as the first night, but they still play with alot of energy. stfu and go back to spectating bitch, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Mel_13]

I'm not whining faggot. I'm just saying that we didn't have enough energy to keep up with the Bulls. Lakers and Celtics play back-to-back and they have no problems, sure their energy is not as high as the first night, but they still play with alot of energy. stfu and go back to spectating bitch, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Impressive post. I will now be fearful to take an opposing view so as to spare myself your wrath.

[ElNono]

Impressive post. I will now be fearful to take an opposing view so as to spare myself your wrath.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/JAmadeo/internet_tough_guy.jpg

[kamikazi_player]

Impressive post. I will now be fearful to take an opposing view so as to spare myself your wrath.
:lol i'm not mad, just telling this guy that i hate the excuse of back to backs. It's pretty lame and every team goes through it.

[HarlemHeat37]

well the Bulls won the offensive rebounding battle 16-10 vs. Boston, and they shot a % similar to what we allowed..the difference was that the Celtics shot 58% offensively, including 12 3-pointers..

[Russ]

Spurs Look Winded in Loss to Bulls
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/10/30/spurs-look-winded-in-loss-to-bulls/

You're going to have to forgive us here in the early season for a bit. If we don't report on trends that are developing, we're ignoring what we're seeing. If we do tell you what we see, we're over-emphasizing games that are so young in this season that they can't even legally get into a screening of New Moon.

Basically, that's my way of imploring you to remember that we do take these things with a gigantic mountain of salt, but here's what happened. And trust me, the Spurs are going to want to brush this one off.

The San Antonio Spurs consider themselves a championship contender. Loaded with talent both young and old, they consider themselves ready to compete with the Lakers for the Western Conference crown. But to do so they'll need to get the highest seed possible to face weaker opponents in early rounds. And in order to get that high seed, they'll need to win back-to-back games on the road. On Thursday they looked like that might be more of a challenge than they're ready for at this early stage, as the Spurs fell to the Chicago Bulls 92-85.

It was a night where the Spurs shot 19 percent from 3-point land, shot only 42 percent overall, and were beaten on the offensive glass, 15-8. But the most glaring thing you came away with in this game was that for a team that was supposed to have reloaded to get rid of that "old, tired" description that's hung around them for years, even when they were winning championships, the Spurs were blown away by the Bulls' speed, energy, and athleticism.

Tim Duncan did what he does, scoring 28 points on 19 shots with 16 boards and 3 blocks, a simply sublime performance. But Manu Ginobili was the only other Spur in double digits with 12, while Tony Parker shot 4-11, Richard Jefferson 3-9, and Roger Mason 0-4. Rookie sensation and instant hype machine DeJuan Blair had only 6 points and 4 rebounds in 12 minutes, good for a rookie, but close to what he'll probably produce night in and night out.

The Spurs were unable to close off penetration lanes, unable to block out Joakim Noah and Luol Deng (10 offensive rebounds combined), and unable to lock down Derrick Rose, who finished with 13 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists with just one turnover. The Bulls consistently were able to produce quality ball rotations leading to open three pointers. If the Bulls had shot better than their putrid 19% from the arc, the difference could have been


greater. As it was, Luol Deng looked capable of filling in some of the gap from Ben Gordon's departure, Derrick Rose looked like he was progressing, Joakim Noah is a top 10 center in the league right now, and Kirk Hinrich provides both shooting and defensive toughness with quality minutes.

Perhaps most startling is that the Spurs, normally so resolved mentally, could have such a flat night so early. Just last night they walloped the Hornets, running them ragged and dominating them defensively. But against a Bulls squad who arguably have a better roster 1-10 than the Hornets, the Spurs looked not only slow and languid, but lost.

I'd expect an unpleasant conversation happened in the locker room after Thursday's game and that the Spurs will answer. But the loss might also be best served as a reminder to the Spurs not to believe the hype, and that like they always preach, they've got to keep pounding that rock with the hammer if they want to collect the one for the thumb.

Obviously, this article was written by Pop under a pseudonym.:flag:

[Interrohater]

well the Bulls won the offensive rebounding battle 16-10 vs. Boston, and they shot a % similar to what we allowed..the difference was that the Celtics shot 58% offensively, including 12 3-pointers..

so, in essence, had we made our shots we would have won the game?
:wow why didn't you say that before?!

[Interrohater]

I'm not whining faggot. I'm just saying that we didn't have enough energy to keep up with the Bulls. Lakers and Celtics play back-to-back and they have no problems, sure their energy is not as high as the first night, but they still play with alot of energy. stfu and go back to spectating bitch, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

That sounds exactly like the kind of stance the media would take and we would all hate them for it. "Fellating the Lakers and Celtics!" we would all say.

The Spurs played with plenty of energy for a Spurs team, they just didn't hit their shots. Easy.

[HarlemHeat37]

I'm just pointing out that the Celtics "lived and died by the 3" tonight too..they shot pretty much the same attempts that we did last night..so that part of the complain isn't valid..

[Agloco]

I'm not whining faggot. I'm just saying that we didn't have enough energy to keep up with the Bulls. Lakers and Celtics play back-to-back and they have no problems, sure their energy is not as high as the first night, but they still play with alot of energy. stfu and go back to spectating bitch, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.


:lol i'm not mad, just telling this guy that i hate the excuse of back to backs. It's pretty lame and every team goes through it.


Indeed it does matter. Believing otherwise puts you in an alternate reality where everyone lives forever, ugly guys bang hot chicks all the time and world hunger has been solved. It's not an excuse, but an explanation. No one is going to whine about it, except fans such as yourself.

Boston isn't playing a BTB, plus they're at home. The Bulls? Yeah they're on a BTB and you can tell. They're a step behind just like the Spurs were last night. They also happen to be much younger than the Spurs.

It matters.......

:rolleyes

[mingus]

the Spurs need to throw Bonner on the IR and give Mahinmi or even Haislip a chance.

also, Finley starting is ridiculous. i'd rather see Hairston out there. Fin and Bonner are too slow to keep up with the athletes the Bulls have.

[phyzik]

First, let me say I dont mind our attempt average, especially when they are falling.

The problem lies on those nights when they are not falling. It all stems from the way the Spurs play defense. We prefer to pop off a shot and run back to get a set defense and prevent a fast break for the other team. The problem with that is we inherently get no second chance points.

I absolutely adore the fact that these 3 point loving idiots still havnt addressed my valid arguement and, after they where asking for one, still havnt refuted my point after 3+ pages.

They wanted a "compelling arguement" and they shut the fuck up when I present one.

Again, my problem isnt with the volume of 3pt shots we take, its when we are taking them and missing like crazy, but yet inexplicity KEEP taking them that pisses me off.


analogy:

For the real men out there...

If your trying to drill a hole through a piece of metal and all you have are wood bits, and they keep breaking, are you going to continue breaking your wood bits or are you going to not be a fucknig idiot and go buy the correct bit for the job?

Sure, with the wood bits you will eventually get thru, but is it really that productive?

[TJastal]

So we're back to Bonner. Frankly, I'm weary of that debate. I don't love Bonner or his game. My point has always been that, just as with all players on the roster, he should play the number of minutes that optimizes the team's chances to win. Right now, IMO, only Duncan and Dice are clearly better. Blair has unlimited potential, but he is most definitely a work in progress. Ratliff can't play major minutes and I don't think Haislip or Ian are NBA ready. So until a trade is made for a better player, which I have supported, we're stuck with him.

Now to your case. Blaming the offensive rebounding issues on Bonner rather than the system is not supported by the facts. The 2006-07 championship team took 19.0 3pt per game and was 3rd to last in offensive rebounding with an average of 9.3 per game. That team didn't start a 3pt shooter at center, yet the results were practically the same.

The most efficient player in the preseason (as PER rankings showed) in the entire fucking league is now considered "a work in progress"?

Well, ... guess they need to put Blair in the starting lineup then... get him some god damn "work". :lol

Duncan and Blair as starters... sounds pretty good to me.

[ulosturedge]

1. We had a bad shooting night.
2. Our vets are still not in game shape.
3. Our new players still learning the system.

A little early for this writer to try and make these bold presumptions.

[VivaPopovich]

They weren't winded, they just haven't gotten the hang of things yet.

New team, give it some time.

[Mel_13]

They wanted a "compelling arguement" and they shut the fuck up when I present one.


Your "argument" wasn't worth responding to. I simply posed a question. If we're taking too many threes, what is the right number?

You said the number is fine, you just have a problem when they're not falling.

OK

[Mel_13]

The most efficient player in the preseason (as PER rankings showed) in the entire fucking league is now considered "a work in progress"?

Well, ... guess they need to put Blair in the starting lineup then... get him some god damn "work". :lol

Duncan and Blair as starters... sounds pretty good to me.

Is he a finished product?

[TJastal]

Is he a finished product?

No, but how do you "finish" a product? Needs to be "worked". IE "invested in", same as George Hill and Hairston

[Mel_13]

No, but how do you "finish" a product? Needs to be "worked". IE "invested in", same as George Hill and Hairston

I agree. Find where I've said Blair, Hill, or Hairston should not get work.

[TJastal]

I agree. Find where I've said Blair, Hill, or Hairston should not get work.

Blair got 13 mins against CHI, Hill 17. Hairston is inactive.

Do you think this is an adequate investment? I don't.

[Mel_13]

Blair got 13 mins against CHI, Hill 17. Hairston is inactive.

Do you think this is an adequate investment? I don't.

Blair's minutes will fluctuate with his performance. Since he's the most exciting new Spur to come along in years, and due to his incredibly high ceiling, I'd like to see more than 13 minutes on most nights. I don't believe, however, that he is entitled to a certain number of minutes every night. In the Chicago game, he was really bad in the first half and had his shift curtailed. He's a rookie, it will happen. I expect it to happen less frequently as the season progresses.

For Hill 17-20 minutes is probably about right. We're really small during the minutes he plays SG, so when those limited minutes are added to his minutes behind Tony, I think that's where it ends up.

Search my posts on Hairston. You won't find a single negative comment. I'm on record that he should get a chunk of Finley's minutes.

[TJastal]

Blair's minutes will fluctuate with his performance. Since he's the most exciting new Spur to come along in years, and due to his incredibly high ceiling, I'd like to see more than 13 minutes on most nights. I don't believe, however, that he is entitled to a certain number of minutes every night. In the Chicago game, he was really bad in the first half and had his shift curtailed. He's a rookie, it will happen. I expect it to happen less frequently as the season progresses.

For Hill 17-20 minutes is probably about right. We're really small during the minutes he plays SG, so when those limited minutes are added to his minutes behind Tony, I think that's where it ends up.

Search my posts on Hairston. You won't find a single negative comment. I'm on record that he should get a chunk of Finley's minutes.

Michael Finley is entitled to his minutes, why shouldn't Blair be? At least the spurs would be investing in the future, not a guy who's going to be getting his AARP card in a few years.

[Mel_13]

Michael Finley is entitled to his minutes, why shouldn't Blair be? At least the spurs would be investing in the future, not a guy who's going to be getting his AARP card in a few years.



What does Michael Finley's minutes have to do with Blair?


I've tried to engage you in a serious discussion. Apparently that is not possible. Every response returns to some complaint about Finley or Bonner.

[TJastal]

What does Michael Finley's minutes have to do with Blair?

I've tried to engage you in a serious discussion. Apparently that is not possible. Every response returns to some complaint about Finley or Bonner.

Maybe your hearing alot of complaining because Pop is starting both of them and playing them major minutes at the expense of developing the younger talent on the team. Your gonna hear a lot more of that I gaurantee you by the end of the season.

Finley's minutes relate to Blair because Pop gives his veterans (and especially Finley & Bonner) minutes regardless, don't matter how many points they're surrendering or how bad they're shooting. It's a running joke around here that Finley is Pop's favorite man-crush. It defies logic, but Finley is still getting his 30+ minutes per game, despite being a turnstyle on defense and offering little more than spot up shooting at the offensive end.

You told me in an earlier post that Blair should not be gauranteed any minutes. All I'm saying is that should apply to everyone on the spurs, not just Pop's favorite "man-crushes" or whatever the fuck is going on there.

[Mel_13]

You told me in an earlier post that Blair should not be gauranteed any minutes. All I'm saying is that should apply to everyone on the spurs, not just Pop's favorite "man-crushes" or whatever the fuck is going on there.

It is not my position that Finley should have guaranteed minutes. I said nothing in my post that could even remotely be interpreted as such.

Your position on Finley and Bonner is well known. It does not need to be restated in every single post.

Read the posts above.

You posed a question.

I answered in some detail.

Rather than respond to my post, you went on a rant about Finley that had nothing to do with any position I have taken.

I still would be interested to read anything you might have to say about the position I took on the playing time for Blair, Hill, and Hairston.