If It Ain't Broke ...

[Blackjack]

If It Ain't Broke ...
Blackjack - RTB -

http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tony_parker_gregg_popovich.jpg

After a hard-fought six-game victory over the Dallas Mavericks the San Antonio Spurs find themselves matched up against a familiar foe, the Phoenix Suns.

San Antonio last saw Phoenix in the opening round of the 2008 Western Conference Playoffs, where the Spurs managed to advance 4-1. The Spurs have eclipsed the Suns in each of the three prior series ('05, '07, and '08) since Steve Nash returned to the Suns -- this time as the face of the franchise -- but the teams have both changed; Alvin Gentry's supplanted Mike D'Antoni, the supporting casts have turned over and the personnel changes have led to an alteration in the way each team goes about getting things done.

What hasn't changed are the principle characters: the Big Three still power the Spurs and Nash-to-Stoudemire still fuels the Suns.

But the alterations haven't been solely to the supporting cast when it comes to the Spurs. Last year's third-team All-NBA point guard now comes off the bench -- the same guy who's run roughshod over the Phoenix Suns in recent years; the same guy who averaged 31-points, 7-assists, 3-rebounds while playing 40-minutes a game and shooting 51-percent from the field and 75-percent from the line against Nash and the Suns during 2008's opening round.

The notion to have such a player coming off the bench would be comical just about anywhere but San Antonio. But when you've got a coach with total autonomy and a template in the form of Manu Ginobili, a 2008 All-NBA Third Team selection himself, the notion not only doesn't seem comical ... it seems prudent -- Parker or Ginobili off the bench is more of a tsunami than a second wave.

The Spurs have struggled with cohesion and chemistry all year. If it wasn't one player going down with an injury, it was another. If it wasn't one rotation, it was twenty-two others. The better part of the Spurs' regular-season has resembled the grasping of straws more than the constant of certainty. And now that the Spurs seemed to have found themselves in the cauldron of this year's playoffs, they wouldn't risk tinkering with the starting lineup now, would they?

There's been a bit of a relay-race going on throughout the year. Tim took the baton early, went out and had one of the most efficient and productive stretches of his career, before starting to taper off around the All-Star break. He kept them in the race until the hand-off could be completed. After a few bobbles and a few missteps, that baton would find its way to Manu Ginobili -- he's yet to relinquish it.

But with Parker rounding into form and the opponent being the Phoenix Suns, could it be time for another hand-off? Was Ginobili's play the final three games of the Mavericks series a sign that his leg of the relay has reached the exchange zone? The Argentine willed himself to 26-points, going 10-12 from the line, but he shot 37-percent (7-19) -- that's after shooting 23-percent combined (6-23) the two games prior.

Whether Ginobili's play is a sign of fatigue, the result of his nasal fracture or just a rough stretch, the question's got to be asked: Would the team and Ginobili be better served at this juncture to have him as the sixth-man; giving him a bit of a breather and chance to find a second wind or a mental reprieve (carrying that kind of responsibility weighs on someone mentally as much as physically)?

It's a tough decision because of all that has transpired before and where they're at now: the playoffs. But the biggest problem with it has nothing to do with Ginobili or Parker.

Before Parker went down in Memphis, on March 6, the Spurs had finally settled on a lineup. They had finally begun to jell and see the success that had eluded them for much of the year. Parker and Hill were thriving alongside of each other, Duncan and McDyess were finding their way together and the bench was the best the league had to offer -- Jefferson and Blair became real factors sharing time with Ginobili and found a chemistry the moment they were united. But there was one fly in the proverbial ointment and one fact that just couldn't be overlooked: the Spurs were starting Keith Bogans.

For as solid of a guy Keith Bogans is as a professional and a man, he possesses neither the dominant defense or adequate offense to warrant playing time on a playoff contender. He's not incapable of being a factor defensively, he had some brief moments against the Mavericks, but those moments are few-and-far between, and they often happen while the offense is sputtering or the team's treading water instead of separating -- the attempt to acquire John Salmons seems to show the Spurs weren't unaware of this.

Popovich played coy with the media on his plans for the lineup moving forward, "Well, some things remain the same and some things change, because we're playing a different team."

Could Parker's history against the Suns be one of those changes for that different team?

If it is, Parker hasn't been told or isn't tipping the coach's hand: "I'm expecting to come off the bench," Parker said. "It's been working well and we did a good job against Dallas, and so I don't think we're going to change strategy." He would add, "We're playing well right now so we should keep it going."

Conventional wisdom would say that's a wise move: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

If only coaching were that easy.

[Libri]

I don't think there are going to be immediate changes. This could change if Nash gets loose. Nash will try to break down the Spurs defense by driving down the lane and kicking out for a 3-pointer. If Hill is unable to prevent Nash from driving, then I could see Pop giving Parker the assignment of guarding Nash.

[honestfool84]

an entire article without a link? :wow

:lol

thank you. great article, as usual.

[duncan228]

Blackjack Raising the Bar through the roof. :tu

I like the conventional wisdom, don't fix it. Like Duncan said, the team has found some identity through the first round. Don't mess with it. Pop can adjust as it goes if he needs to.

[Blackjack]

I don't think there are going to be immediate changes. This could change if Nash gets loose. Nash will try to break down the Spurs defense by driving down the lane and kicking out for a 3-pointer. If Hill is unable to prevent Nash from driving, then I could see Pop giving Parker the assignment of guarding Nash.

It's dicey to make a move before a series starts when you've had success with what you're doing, something that can't be taken for granted given the year, but that's why they pay the coaches the way they do.

My only problem with going back to what worked before Tony fractured his hand is that it puts Bogans prominently into the equation. And while I'm not naive enough to think he won't get some time in this series due to the matchups, I'm certainly not looking forward to him playing anything more than spot-minutes.

But with the every-other-day format, the Spurs do need to find a little depth. And since it's probably too much to ask for a guy like Hairston to jump back in the mix to contribute anything more than a defensive possession or two, and it's unlikely Pop will give Temple a significant look-see (even if I think he might be someone who deserves some real consideration with the matchups), it falls back to Bogans and Mason; some things are just vomit-inducing.

Mason of last year would actually be helpful. The Spurs' lack of a three-point attack is something that really can't be overlooked -- they're playing with a slim margin for error the way they're shooting from both lines, and the limited depth.

If Manu goes back to the bench, I think Blair becomes a bigger factor in the series and helps to lessen the burden of Tim and 'Dyess by eating up a few extra minutes (maybe more). He could become a real x-factor. I have little-to-no fear when it comes to restoring the bench back to what it was before Parker's injury, and Tony and George play well together -- whether their mismatch is greater than the size and play on the other end is debatable.

[Blackjack]

an entire article without a link? :wow

:lol

thank you. great article, as usual.

:lol

I was tempted to link a transcript to another thread. Ya know, to get more traffic. :hat

[jiggy_55]

For as solid of a guy Keith Bogans is as a professional and a man, he possesses neither the dominant defense or adequate offense to warrant playing time on a playoff contender. He's not incapable of being a factor defensively, he had some brief moments against the Mavericks, but those moments are few-and-far between, and they often happen while the offense is sputtering or the team's treading water instead of separating -- the attempt to acquire John Salmons seems to show the Spurs weren't unaware of this.

Interesting note, we knew they'd have some interest, all us fans sure had interest! But never heard a writer actually say the Spurs made a move for him. Would have been a perfect fit really, and he would have taken a huge load off of all our scorers and older legs. Sucks we didn't acquire him!

[ace3g]

just like everyone else, and the OP, If It Ain't Broke.... Hell all you have to do is look back to last years Finals when the Magic screwed their chances of winning before the series started by taking Alston out of the starting lineup and screwing up the rotations and confidence (especially Alston, who lead the team to the finals then gets benched) of the team. I still believe that was the sole reason why the Magic lost.

The only reason to make a rotation change is because of either an injury or you lose 2 games straight. Keep the Hill, Manu, RJ, Timmy, Dice lineup.

[Blackjack]

Interesting note, we knew they'd have some interest, all us fans sure had interest! But never heard a writer actually say the Spurs made a move for him. Would have been a perfect fit really, and he would have taken a huge load off of all our scorers and older legs. Sucks we didn't acquire him!

It was reported around the trade deadline that the Spurs made an offer or presented a package for Salmons that Chicago declined in favor of Milwaukee.

[Libri]

It's dicey to make a move before a series starts when you've had success with what you're doing, something that can't be taken for granted given the year, but that's why they pay the coaches the way they do.

My only problem with going back to what worked before Tony fractured his hand is that it puts Bogans prominently into the equation. And while I'm not naive enough to think he won't get some time in this series due to the matchups, I'm certainly not looking forward to him playing anything more than spot-minutes.

But with the every-other-day format, the Spurs do need to find a little depth. And since it's probably too much to ask for a guy like Hairston to jump back in the mix to contribute anything more than a defensive possession or two, and it's unlikely Pop will give Temple a significant look-see (even if I think he might be someone who deserves some real consideration with the matchups), it falls back to Bogans and Mason; some things are just vomit-inducing.

Mason of last year would actually be helpful. The Spurs' lack of a three-point attack is something that really can't be overlooked -- they're playing with a slim margin for error the way they're shooting from both lines, and the limited depth.

If Manu goes back to the bench, I think Blair becomes a bigger factor in the series and helps to lessen the burden of Tim and 'Dyess by eating up a few extra minutes (maybe more). He could become a real x-factor. I have little-to-no fear when it comes to restoring the bench back to what it was before Parker's injury, and Tony and George play well together -- whether their mismatch is greater than the size and play on the other end is debatable.

I'm with you about Blair. I would like to see him get more minutes because the Suns don't have a defensive presence in the middle.

I agree that Bogans and Mason should get very few minutes. I noticed that Mason's second highest ppg average during the regular season was against the Suns (12.3), first was against Washington (15.5). I hope Pop doesn't take Mason's ppg average against the Suns into consideration.

Here is an interesting note on that stat. Mason played three games against Phoenix. He scored 18 in one game and 19 in another and played heavy minutes. Spurs lost both of those games. The only game the Spurs won was the one where Mason only played 6 minutes and had 0 points. :lol

[Mel_13]

Conventional wisdom would say that's a wise move: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

If only coaching were that easy.

:tu

Nice job.

A few thoughts:

-It ain't broke, so there won't be a change unless the Spurs face a "must-win" situation. If they come back from Phoenix down 2-0, I'd expect to see Manu coming off the bench for game 3.

-If it comes to that, I would expect a simple flip between Tony and Manu. I expect RJ to remain in the starting line-up either way.

-Coaching isn't easy, regardless of what some here may think. The real hard decisions, IMO, are going to come with the big rotation rather than with the perimeter players. TP, Manu, Hill, and RJ can cover the three perimeter positions with little or no need for Mason or Bogans as long as the Spurs are able to minimize small ball.

-The big situation is much more problematic. For example: what does Pop do if Dice gets two quick fouls? Do you bring in Blair to cover Lopez/Collins and let TD cover Amare? Do you try Bonner on Amare (ugh)?
How about long stretches of Amare/Frye up front for Phoenix? Do you leave Dice on Amare and have TD leave the paint to guard Frye out to the arc? Do you bring in Bonner to guard Frye and let TD guard Amare? Do you go small?
What if Phoenix goes small with Amare and Dudley up front? Can Blair guard Dudley, or Frye for that matter? Do you have to go small against that configuration?

-How those questions are answered can trickle down to the perimeter rotation. Every minute that the Spurs play small will likely lead to a minute on the perimeter by either Mason or Bogans.

-It's easy for us to say that minutes for Bonner, Mason, and Bogans should be kept to an absolute minimum. Circumstances may dictate otherwise.




Interesting note, we knew they'd have some interest, all us fans sure had interest! But never heard a writer actually say the Spurs made a move for him.

Careful, Blackjack's ego is sufficiently inflated without comments like this.:downspin:

[ace3g]

Yeah it would have been Salmons for Bonner and Mason.


The Bulls had been in discussions with the Spurs on a deal that would have sent Salmons to San Antonio for Roger Mason and Matt Bonner, but those talks died.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/13433/talking-salmons-robinson-and-harrington

[jiggy_55]

Yeah it would have been Salmons for Bonner and Mason.


http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/13433/talking-salmons-robinson-and-harrington

Wow, never read that. Sucks! We'd be a MUCH better team with Mason out of the way that's for sure. As for Bonner, he's always been a playoff fluke. Hope he turns it around against Phoenix, but my hopes are low. Salmons addition would have given us another 30+ minute guy who can shoot, drive and get to the whole. Our team would be much fresher going into this series.

Funny how at the beginning of the season, and even midway, it was said the Spurs have the NBA's best bench. Right now, we probably have the weakest bench of all playoff teams :s. Bogans, Bonner and Mason have become crap quite quickly.

[Blackjack]

Here is an interesting note on that stat. Mason played three games against Phoenix. He scored 18 in one game and 19 in another and played heavy minutes. Spurs lost both of those games. The only game the Spurs won was the one where Mason only played 6 minutes and had 0 points. :lol

Some things just aren't all that complicated: less Mason, more win.


:tu

Nice job.

A few thoughts:

-It ain't broke, so there won't be a change unless the Spurs face a "must-win" situation. If they come back from Phoenix down 2-0, I'd expect to see Manu coming off the bench for game 3.

Agree. Pop's got balls, but I can't even see him making a move like that before he faces some kind of adversity


-If it comes to that, I would expect a simple flip between Tony and Manu. I expect RJ to remain in the starting line-up either way.

Given the choice would be Bogans or Jefferson, I tend to agree (and pray ... a lot).


-Coaching isn't easy, regardless of what some here may think. The real hard decisions, IMO, are going to come with the big rotation rather than with the perimeter players. TP, Manu, Hill, and RJ can cover the three perimeter positions with little or no need for Mason or Bogans as long as the Spurs are able to minimize small ball.

This Suns team presents a lot of potential problems. They've got size on the perimeter, the Spurs are small. They've got quickness and shooting on the frontline, the Spurs have more traditional, defensive bigs -- it should be interesting.


-The big situation is much more problematic. For example: what does Pop do if Dice gets two quick fouls? Do you bring in Blair to cover Lopez/Collins and let TD cover Amare? Do you try Bonner on Amare (ugh)?

There's really no way getting around TD defending Amar'e. If they're playing Frye, you can't have your best rebounder out at the three-point line leaving the board vulnerable and preventing your ability to dictate pace by allowing one shot. I think Blair can have some success against Amar'e in stretches defensively but their best bet is to go at him on the other end and hope that you get him in foul-trouble, which isn't much of a stretch.

How about long stretches of Amare/Frye up front for Phoenix? Do you leave Dice on Amare and have TD leave the paint to guard Frye out to the arc? Do you bring in Bonner to guard Frye and let TD guard Amare? Do you go small?

There's also no way around the Spurs needing Bonner to give them something. They're sorely in need of some three-point shooting and people that can absorb a few minutes here and there, but Bonner's yet to prove capable under the playoff's pressure. Regardless, he should see some time on both Frye and Stoudemire ... and I guess you hope for the best -- I believe the term was, 'ugh'. :lol

What if Phoenix goes small with Amare and Dudley up front? Can Blair guard Dudley, or Frye for that matter? Do you have to go small against that configuration?

Going through all of these scenarios keeps leading me to one conclusion: the Spurs best defense is a calculated, methodical offensive attack -- it's get or get got, as I like to say. :hat


-How those questions are answered can trickle down to the perimeter rotation. Every minute that the Spurs play small will likely lead to a minute on the perimeter by either Mason or Bogans.

-It's easy for us to say that minutes for Bonner, Mason, and Bogans should be kept to an absolute minimum. Circumstances may dictate otherwise.

Very true. And when you look at a 6 or 7-man rotation that consists of some older players that will be forced to play on an every-other-day schedule, it just stands to reason they're going to get some time; Hairston and Temple don't seem to be in the cards for this series (but there might be a Mahinmi sighting at some point).

Facts are facts, but you can't prevent me from lamenting them. :lol





Careful, Blackjack's ego is sufficiently inflated without comments like this.:downspin:

Who, me? :wow

When you're right, you're right . . . :tu

[stéphane]

Actually having Matt d up Frye at the 3 point line makes a lot of sense. It's not like we're loosing that much of rebounding potential having him at the 3 point line.

[montgod]

Wow, never read that. Sucks! We'd be a MUCH better team with Mason out of the way that's for sure. As for Bonner, he's always been a playoff fluke. Hope he turns it around against Phoenix, but my hopes are low. Salmons addition would have given us another 30+ minute guy who can shoot, drive and get to the whole. Our team would be much fresher going into this series.

Funny how at the beginning of the season, and even midway, it was said the Spurs have the NBA's best bench. Right now, we probably have the weakest bench of all playoff teams :s. Bogans, Bonner and Mason have become crap quite quickly.

I still wonder if Vinny DelNegro had anything to do with Chicago choosing the Bucks trade over San Antonio. Essentially, the trade was the same between the two with two expiring contracts for Salmons.

[ace3g]

Starting to think about it now, the first year that Bonner got heavy minutes (or any minutes for that matter) in the playoffs was in '09 when we faced the Mavs in the 1st round. He just doesn't match up well against them, now against the Suns it is a different story, hopefully he can gain some confidence during this series. Again his entire playoff career basically has been against the Mavs. We will need him for about 10 to 15 minutes each night; so the Spurs can have a 4 PF/C rotation of: Tim, Dice, Blair, and Bonner. This series he could easily avg 7-8 ppg.

[Blackjack]

Actually having Matt d up Frye at the 3 point line makes a lot of sense. It's not like we're loosing that much of rebounding potential having him at the 3 point line.

He'd definitely be the logical choice given skill set/mobility, and he'll get his opportunities.

Whether he does much with them is another matter. I guess you just cross your fingers that the guy finally has some kind of breakthrough . . .

[montgod]

With all their three point shooters (Dudley, Frye, Richardson, Nash, Barbosa) spreading out the floor, this will definitely be an interesting series. The Spurs need to be on top of their rotations and make sure to make these guys a liability in shooting blanks instead of open three pointers. Sort of reminds me of the old Spurs where they were soley dependent on the three pointer to be successful. Looking forward to this series.

[timvp]

Good post, B'Jack.

Parker-off-the-bench makes the least amount of sense against the Suns. In any other matchup, I'd continue to fully support it. Against Phoenix, I'm not so convinced.

1) Parker routinely destroys Steve Nash and the Suns. With Nash injured, you want Nash to try to guard Parker as much as possible. That won't happen with Parker off the bench.

2) Starting Parker would make the Suns gameplan against Parker rather than against Duncan. It'll be easier for the Suns to figure out how to stop TD when they don't have to worry about TP breaking down their defense left and right.

3) Phoenix's bench matches up better against TP than their starters. Dragic has had some success against Parker. The Suns' starting unit would have to pray that Grant Hill can stop TP.

We'll see how it plays out but TP starting against the Suns makes sense for a lot of reasons . . .

[SpursTillTheEnd]

Naw man think about it hill is can guard nash better than parker can and when parker comes off the bench he is going to kill who ever is out there, so just leave it how it is the parker/blair combo is going to be deadly.

[EricB]

:lol @ the all of a sudden assumption that hill will just "shut down Nash"

[silverblackfan]

I think Tony off the bench really helps our second unit keep their poise and offensive pressure on Phoenix. I am hoping that Blair will get some meaningful minutes and do his thing with them. The Suns bench is pretty deep, so ours has to match the intensity. Tony and Blair provide that intensity. Lets hope the two start working better together on the pick and roll.

[montgod]

Good post, B'Jack.

Parker-off-the-bench makes the least amount of sense against the Suns. In any other matchup, I'd continue to fully support it. Against Phoenix, I'm not so convinced.

1) Parker routinely destroys Steve Nash and the Suns. With Nash injured, you want Nash to try to guard Parker as much as possible. That won't happen with Parker off the bench.

2) Starting Parker would make the Suns gameplan against Parker rather than against Duncan. It'll be easier for the Suns to figure out how to stop TD when they don't have to worry about TP breaking down their defense left and right.

3) Phoenix's bench matches up better against TP than their starters. Dragic has had some success against Parker. The Suns' starting unit would have to pray that Grant Hill can stop TP.

We'll see how it plays out but TP starting against the Suns makes sense for a lot of reasons . . .

Good post.

If anything, I think Barbosa would be guarding TP especially since he has the speed to do so. He isn't a defensive juggernaut, but they can probably both tire each other out. I agree that TP would be best going against the first unit. Either way, I think the Spurs come in there forcing the issue and making the Suns make adjustments first. We will see.

[Blackjack]

Good post, B'Jack.

Parker-off-the-bench makes the least amount of sense against the Suns. In any other matchup, I'd continue to fully support it. Against Phoenix, I'm not so convinced.

'Preciate it. And, yeah, that's the same thinking that brought about the OP. Parker starting just makes too much sense to simply dismiss.

But making such a move before any kind of adversity hits would take some serious cajones, and I'm just not sure any coach could or would pull the trigger on it after experiencing the type of season the Spurs have had -- you finally find a winning combination and attempt to find a new/old one before the current one fails. It's a gut decision, and a dicey one at that.


1) Parker routinely destroys Steve Nash and the Suns. With Nash injured, you want Nash to try to guard Parker as much as possible. That won't happen with Parker off the bench.

Very true. Parker thrives in this matchup because there are more possessions and more opportunities to get out in the open court and get easy baskets. Nash in the halfcourt against Parker ... nets easy baskets -- Parker finds a rhythm and confidence against the Suns because all of the opportunity and certainty of how he'll be defended.


2) Starting Parker would make the Suns gameplan against Parker rather than against Duncan. It'll be easier for the Suns to figure out how to stop TD when they don't have to worry about TP breaking down their defense left and right.

Manu at the point of the attack isn't anything to scoff at and it's something that the Suns might even gameplan for in a similar fashion, but you're right. It's different with Parker -- his speed is a real game-changer; the defense finds themselves on their heels more often than not and it presents opportunities for the team overall, while diverting attention from Duncan.


3) Phoenix's bench matches up better against TP than their starters. Dragic has had some success against Parker. The Suns' starting unit would have to pray that Grant Hill can stop TP.

Dragic should do a credible job -- he's got good length, moves his feet well and has some pretty decent defensive instincts. The Suns and Dragic have yet to see this Tony Parker, one who's closer to 100% physically, but Dragic is definitely their best option for him.

As it pertains to Hill, Tony knows what he's going to get: the midrange shot (which is down 8-percent --37% to last year's 45% -- in the 16-23' range but up and average of 10-percent in the < 10' range -- 53 to 44% -- and 10-15 range -- 39% to 29%).

I really believe a lot of Parker's success against the Suns comes from the knowledge and certainty of what he needs to do offensively and where his opportunities will come from. He knows he's going to get the jumper, and he comes into the game ready to knock those shots out. But shooting is about consistency, rhythm and confidence, and the latter two would probably be acquired or found easier starting the game in this particular matchup.


We'll see how it plays out but TP starting against the Suns makes sense for a lot of reasons . . .

Yup. And one of those reasons is Blair; there's no question a reunion with Manu would prove beneficial to his potential impact.

[Brazil]

This serie is and will be totally different than the serie against the mavs.
- The lack of bigs depth won't be an issue for the spurs, even a manu hill tp rj and tim lineup could work well.
- This serie the TP coming off the bench could be a bad decision: TP would take way more advantage of his matchup against Nash than against Dragic. Hill has still difficulties to handle quick PG and good ball handling PG ala Nash on the other hand he has the size and the quality to take advantage of the Dragic matchup.
- Bonner could be another thing than a liability this serie, I think he will be efficient against Frye or Dudley + the suns don't defend well the 3 points which could give him confidence (it is just an impression didn't check the stats).
- I disagree with the "give Mason 0 min" theory, one moment or another we will need him, this serie could be an opportunity to try to give him confidence back.

[Mel_13]

The reasoning for starting TP v. the Suns is solid, but I would point to game 6 of the Dallas series. Tony entered the game after 5 minutes were gone in the first quarter and after only 3 minutes were gone in the 3rd. Pop can get Tony the great majority of his minutes playing against Nash without a change in the starting line-up.

(In the Blazer series Dragic played most of his minutes covering the last two minutes of first and third quarters and the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters.)

[Spurs Brazil]

Great read Blackjack

[Blackjack]

- I disagree with the "give Mason 0 min" theory, one moment or another we will need him, this serie could be an opportunity to try to give him confidence back.

Mason could actually be useful in this series, and he will see some action. And since he has had some success against Phoenix and even authored his most famous moment against them -- the nationally-televised buzzer-beater on Christmas -- there's a possibility that the guy's past experience gives him the confidence to step up and help the cause. But if he's the player he's been for the majority of the year during the series, he's got no business on the court -- I wish there'd been some kind of indication that he could be counted on; the Spurs' three-point attack could surely use bolstering.


The reasoning for starting TP v. the Suns is solid, but I would point to game 6 of the Dallas series. Tony entered the game after 5 minutes were gone in the first quarter and after only 3 minutes were gone in the 3rd. Pop can get Tony the great majority of his minutes playing against Nash without a change in the starting line-up.

(In the Blazer series Dragic played most of his minutes covering the last two minutes of first and third quarters and the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters.)

And that's what I was getting at.

Call it reasoning, rationale, logic or conventional wisdom, the fact is if you just look at the matchup and the tangible evidence, it's hard to come away thinking Parker shouldn't be starting.

But basketball isn't played on paper or in a vacuum ... there are extenuating circumstances -- the chemistry of teammates and collective rhythm of a team being the ones most affected by such a change, negatively or positively.

There's definitely a possibility that Hill starting works out. The Game 6 example makes sense and it could very well net a similar result to having Parker start the game. But, again, it's just the logic of starting Parker. It make a lot of sense and I can't help but think it's going to be something that will end up happening -- hopefully, if it does, the Spurs won't wish they had done it sooner.

[TD 21]

My guess is the biggest change Pop was alluding to was running the offense through Duncan more. Making the Parker for Ginobili switch is something we'll probably see if Ginobili continues to struggle, Parker continues his history of dominating the Suns and the Spurs are down 2-0 or 2-1. At this point, it would probably take all three of those things happening simultaneously for that change to occur.

[Blackjack]

If It Ain't Broke

Break it -- Pop's got the adversity and impetus to do it now.

You never want to knee-jerk after a single playoff loss but you could see this coming: Nash's success against Hill; the poor spacing with the lack of a 3-point attack and spot-up shooters surrounding Tim; and the mental lapses that lead to a transition game that's second to none. Two of those things can definitely be rectified (start Parker and bring a better effort and focus to the game for the all-so-cliche 48-minutes) but the spacing is going to be a problem.

How's this for a mea culpa: I think the Spurs might need to start Bogans.

I know, you've just tasted a bit of that dinner you had 4-6 hours ago, but the Spurs need spacing for Tim. I don't think he's going to all of a sudden knock down his threes at a 40-percent clip, but the Suns honored him tonight and the Spurs could probably get away with it to start the game, if only to get Tim and Tony doing their thing.

Hill should ideally come off the bench to match up against Dragic and play less minutes against the bigger wings, who can post him up or take advantage of their size, but I don't think you can go that route. You just can't risk losing Hill for the series and a demotion and lesser role/assignment risks exactly just that -- I'd go back to the pre-injury lineup of Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan; Tim and Tony get the spot-up shooters in the corners to garner better spacing and George gets to finish more off the ball and attack a rotating or on-their-heels defense. Hopefully you get by with it for a good 5-6 minutes before having to go to the bench.

The 3-point shot has been a big concern of mine and the lack of it could ultimately doom this team in the end. But they can beat the Suns if they just clean up the things they can control -- keep the mental lapses to a minimum (i.e: transition, turnovers, rotations and KYP), rebound the ball, get Duncan on the move and starting more from the high post to get him out of traffic (that's where the spot-up shooting can help to start the game, as well) and start Tony Parker. It's doable, they've just got to do it.

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

[rayray2k8]

It's broken now.

[ChumpDumper]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

[Blackjack]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

That's actually some flawless logic. :tu

[kace]

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

Parker success in those game where his drive are so huge relies also a lot on 3 pts shooting. Hope manu, hill and RJ will show up in that area.

[jag]

helluva writeup. Props

[DAF86]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

Rick Carlisle should hire ChumpDumper to explain Mavsfans why Roddy Beaubois didn't get more playing time.

[L.I.T]

The Manu/Blair/RJeff group off the bench was particularly effective during the latter part of the season (prior to TP going down). If I remember correctly, a coach even said that Blair works better with Manu than Dice does because of Blair's ability to cut and catch on the move.

Bogans could be effective against Richardson defensively; but Nash likely will be able to hide on him on defense.

It's incredibly risky though benching Manu + RJeff and starting Bogans. If you're going to bench someone, Manu makes perfect sense since his ego and his game likely won't suffer since he's used to being in this position; one that Hill is not used to.

It could have the payoff of turning a decided disadvantage (the bench) into a slight edge to the Spurs. But damn...Bogans in the starting lineup just sounds wrong on so many levels.

[Blackjack]

Parker success in those game where his drive are so huge relies also a lot on 3 pts shooting. Hope manu, hill and RJ will show up in that area.

That's why I think it'd benefit the team more to have him start with Tim, 'Dyess and two spot-up shooters in the corners (Hill and Bogans). Tim and Tony will benefit from the spacing and find a better rhythm quicker because of the touches and opportunities they'll be given -- the offense will be run through Tony and Tim exclusively which can set the tone and rhythm for them for the duration of the game; RJ's not going to be hitting more than a few threes this series and neither Manu or George are what you'd deem marksman -- Ginobili's streaky and Hill's proficiency is pretty much confined to the corner. The 3-point shooting just isn't there and they're going to have to create a lot of spacing with smoke and mirrors.

Manu, RJ and Blair should be able to pick up right where they left off. Manu's playmaking was a godsend to those two when they were united the first time and I don't see any reason why it can't be done again. I honestly think it's the best way this team can create the right balance and spacing to get the ship going in the right direction, before you cut the rotation down the stretch of the game and play your best 5 or 6 -- I just lament the fact that Pop and the Spurs have to rely on Bogans and not a younger (even if inexperienced), but more skilled player, who was developed during the course of the year (and that's not necessarily Hairston, thought it very well could've been, but someone of that ilk -- maybe Temple should get a look?).

It was just painfully obvious how much easier it was for Phoenix's wings to disrupt the halfcourt offense with deflections, digs in the post and their ability to recover to shooters because of the closer proximity. That's gotsta change.

[Blackjack]

It could have the payoff of turning a decided disadvantage (the bench) into a slight edge to the Spurs. But damn...Bogans in the starting lineup just sounds wrong on so many levels.

Trust me, I know. ... I didn't come to this conclusion all that willingly. :lol

I just think the pros outweigh the cons when you're talking Hill over Jefferson in the starting lineup, and Bogans is a bit of a necessary evil to start the game.

When it comes to Hill, he's not the type of player that's going to come off the bench and start lighting up a team offensively -- his offense is pretty rudimentary at this point and he finds a lot of his success off the ball and in transition. And since there's not a real natural matchup for him defensively (one that would keep him on the court for that purpose, anyway) bringing him off the bench would diminish his role, and maybe even his effectiveness (to some degree), which is something the Spurs just can't afford since he's been their fourth best player.

RJ, on the other hand, he thrives alongside Manu. So does Blair (which could help to bring a little more quality to their current depth). And I don't see there being any kind of problem for RJ in this circumstance -- he'll get a feel of the game before going in and he'll see a better quality of touches and possessions with Manu at the point of the attack upon entry; the goal is to basically stoke the flames of your five-to-seven best players individually to start the game, and have it build to a good size fire collectively by the end of the game.

[TD 21]

Break it -- Pop's got the adversity and impetus to do it now.

You never want to knee-jerk after a single playoff loss but you could see this coming: Nash's success against Hill; the poor spacing with the lack of a 3-point attack and spot-up shooters surrounding Tim; and the mental lapses that lead to a transition game that's second to none. Two of those things can definitely be rectified (start Parker and bring a better effort and focus to the game for the all-so-cliche 48-minutes) but the spacing is going to be a problem.

How's this for a mea culpa: I think the Spurs might need to start Bogans.

I know, you've just tasted a bit of that dinner you had 4-6 hours ago, but the Spurs need spacing for Tim. I don't think he's going to all of a sudden knock down his threes at a 40-percent clip, but the Suns honored him tonight and the Spurs could probably get away with it to start the game, if only to get Tim and Tony doing their thing.

Hill should ideally come off the bench to match up against Dragic and play less minutes against the bigger wings, who can post him up or take advantage of their size, but I don't think you can go that route. You just can't risk losing Hill for the series and a demotion and lesser role/assignment risks exactly just that -- I'd go back to the pre-injury lineup of Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan; Tim and Tony get the spot-up shooters in the corners to garner better spacing and George gets to finish more off the ball and attack a rotating or on-their-heels defense. Hopefully you get by with it for a good 5-6 minutes before having to go to the bench.

The 3-point shot has been a big concern of mine and the lack of it could ultimately doom this team in the end. But they can beat the Suns if they just clean up the things they can control -- keep the mental lapses to a minimum (i.e: transition, turnovers, rotations and KYP), rebound the ball, get Duncan on the move and starting more from the high post to get him out of traffic (that's where the spot-up shooting can help to start the game, as well) and start Tony Parker. It's doable, they've just got to do it.

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

You're right, there needed to be reason or cause to make the switch; past history wasn't enough. And being that he is a young player, the Spurs could have easily lost Hill mentally for the series by making this move prior to the series. How much does he know and why would he care about past triumphs over the Suns and how the Spurs were successful with Parker attacking Nash? To him, that probably means very little. His mindset probably was, "this team played their best ball of the season with me starting, I came up big in round one, why would I not at least get the chance to start in round two?" But now, after the beating Nash administered on him and Parker again going off against the Suns, I think Hill would understand the switch.

Bogans hardly offers more spacing than Jefferson. I know we should base it primarily on this season, but career-wise they're basically even as three point shooters and even this season, until Jefferson completely fell off in this regard down the stretch, they were basically even throughout most of the season. Throw in the fact that Jefferson is bigger, more athletic and more talented and the fact that Bogans is shooting the three slightly better doesn't make him a better option to offer spacing any more than Jefferson.

The problem is Jefferson's sudden reluctance to shoot the three. In the second half, he wouldn't even go behind the line. He needs to be willing to shoot the corner three in particular. I don't care if he goes 0-3 off of wide open looks. Taking them (even if they are all misses) and keeping the defense honest is better than not taking them at all and making it so much easier on them rotation-wise. If you're going to shoot in the low 30's, the defense won't respect you much, but if you're not going to shoot at all, they won't respect you at all and that allows them to load up on Duncan more. It's about getting Jefferson to take the shot when it's there and (to pull a Marc Jackson) living with the results.

As much as we talk about slowing them, particularly in transition, the reality is the Spurs aren't as good defensively as they once were, so if they plan on beating them they're going to have to score. Bogans can't help in this regard; Jefferson can. Pop needs to not over think things and always look to match-up with the Suns, but rather play his six-seven most talented players the majority of the minutes. If the Spurs are going to win this series, that's how they're going to do it.

That being said, I've had enough of Bonner/Mason. Bogans should be the eighth man in an eight man rotation and those two should be riding the pine. No more chances. They're not cut out for playing games with this type of pressure. You need guys (again, to pull a Jackson) not afraid of the moment. Maybe Mason's excuse is more injury related, at this point I don't care. Bonner, he's clearly afraid of the moment. Instead of trusting his shot, he's over penetrating.

[Shastafarian]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

Temple doesn't need to play. What happened to the 8 man playoff rotation?

Parker-Hill-Manu-RJ-Blair-Bonner(cringe)-Tim-Dice

I mean, if temple can play legit defense then ok. Mason should not play again. I'd be fine with bogans sitting as well since he won't produce like he did last night (it's sad that I'm forced to call what he did last night production). I'd rather see Hairston than Mason at this point. At least Hairston hustles and can get to the rim on occasion.

[L.I.T]

I just think the pros outweigh the cons when you're talking Hill over Jefferson in the starting lineup, and Bogans is a bit of a necessary evil to start the game.

When it comes to Hill, he's not the type of player that's going to come off the bench and start lighting up a team offensively -- his offense is pretty rudimentary at this point and he finds a lot of his success off the ball and in transition. And since there's not a real natural matchup for him defensively (one that would keep him on the court for that purpose, anyway) bringing him off the bench would diminish his role, and maybe even his effectiveness (to some degree), which is something the Spurs just can't afford since he's been their fourth best player.

RJ, on the other hand, he thrives alongside Manu. So does Blair (which could help to bring a little more quality to their current depth). And I don't see there being any kind of problem for RJ in this circumstance -- he'll get a feel of the game before going in and he'll see a better quality of touches and possessions with Manu at the point of the attack upon entry; the goal is to basically stoke the flames of your five-to-seven best players individually to start the game, and have it build to a good size fire collectively by the end of the game.

I agree about Hill not necessarily being able to be an offensive spark-plug or being able to effectively coordinate the bench mob.

But, I just wonder if benching two of your starters is too much of a drastic move; would Pop really want to do that after just one game? Benching Hill for TP makes perfect sense.

In a way, so does benching Manu and RJeff. Both of them I'm sure are resilient mentally enough to be able to quickly make the transition.

I wonder if we would see Pop bench Hill for TP, and if that doesn't work after Game 2, making the Manu/RJeff for Hill/Bogans move going into Game 3.

Or would that be too much tinkering...

[MannyIsGod]

Temple doesn't need to play. What happened to the 8 man playoff rotation?



The Suns uptempo and only one game off between games happened.

[Russ]

If Bogans doesn't play a fair amount along this playoff run, and contribute some timely D (and maybe a timely 3), I don't see the Spurs getting where they want to go.

He still reminds me of Bowen, dammit. (I'd even throw him on Nash every once in a while).

[Blackjack]

Bogans hardly offers more spacing than Jefferson[/B]. I know we should base it primarily on this season, but career-wise they're basically even as three point shooters and even this season, until Jefferson completely fell off in this regard down the stretch, they were basically even throughout most of the season.

The problem is Jefferson's sudden reluctance to shoot the three. In the second half, he wouldn't even go behind the line. He needs to be willing to shoot the corner three in particular. I don't care if he goes 0-3 off of wide open looks. Taking them (even if they are all misses) and keeping the defense honest is better than not taking them at all and making it so much easier on them rotation-wise. If you're going to shoot in the low 30's, the defense won't respect you much, but if you're not going to shoot at all, they won't respect you at all and that allows them to load up on Duncan more. It's about getting Jefferson to take the shot when it's there and (to pull a Marc Jackson) living with the results.

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.



That being said, I've had enough of Bonner/Mason. Bogans should be the eighth man in an eight man rotation and those two should be riding the pine. No more chances. They're not cut out for playing games with this type of pressure. You need guys (again, to pull a Jackson) not afraid of the moment. Maybe Mason's excuse is more injury related, at this point I don't care. Bonner, he's clearly afraid of the moment. Instead of trusting his shot, he's over penetrating.

Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

[Blackjack]

I agree about Hill not necessarily being able to be an offensive spark-plug or being able to effectively coordinate the bench mob.

But, I just wonder if benching two of your starters is too much of a drastic move; would Pop really want to do that after just one game? Benching Hill for TP makes perfect sense.

In a way, so does benching Manu and RJeff. Both of them I'm sure are resilient mentally enough to be able to quickly make the transition.

I wonder if we would see Pop bench Hill for TP, and if that doesn't work after Game 2, making the Manu/RJeff for Hill/Bogans move going into Game 3.

Or would that be too much tinkering...

I think if you start playing lineups that haven't found a chemistry or much success along the way ... that's too much tinkering.

But if you're doing what I'm suggesting, I don't think there's be a problem; and it's basically benching one starter (RJ -- you're trading out Manu for Tony) and you're bringing that starter back in where he's going to see the ball more and be more involved overall. The goal should be to get Tony off to start the game in this matchup and allow Tim the room to find a rhythm; RJ isn't going to give you much more than Bogans in that scenario.

[TD 21]

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.




Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season, close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in a hole early.

It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

Hill starting at the two? Are you intentionally trying to dig an early hole? He can't guard Richardson in the post. Richardson is already scorching hot and brimming with confidence, why make it even easier for him to get off then it already is?

I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. I would only stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all complete each other perfectly.

[TD 21]

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.




Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson to camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season and close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in an early hole.

It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs, your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

Hill starting at the two is a terrible idea, seeing as how he can't guard Richardson in the post. Richardson is already scorching hot and brimming with confidence, why make it even easier for him to get off than it already is?

I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. He only needs to stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all compliment each other perfectly.

[Blackjack]

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson to camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season and close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

I'm wholeheartedly with you in the sentiment, but the reality is what it is.

I mean, yeah, you'd like to hear that Pop and/or Duncan would have a frank discussion with him, "Shoot the ball, pussy! How much are we paying your dainty ass?," but I just don't see that netting a boost in confidence or his three-point percentage. As Barkley would say, "I might be wrong, but I doubt it."


The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in an early hole.

I don't see them being at some huge defecit, if one at all, for the first five-minutes or so. Their defense isn't going to be worse than what it started out yesterday with Tony on Nash and Bogans on Richardson or Hill, and I don't find it all that troubling to have George on either one for a few minutes; the Suns trying to exploit George works against them as far as I'm concerned -- that means they're in the halfcourt and Amar'e or Nash doesn't have the ball.


It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs, your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

In theory, I agree with you. But if your five best players don't particularly mesh when it comes to skillset and there's only one ball, just having them out there doesn't mean your maximizing the talent's potential -- the Spurs have to create depth and get a better quality of contribution from the back half of their rotation with the schedule and the age of their best players. This is one of the better ways to do it, IMO.


I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. He only needs to stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all compliment each other perfectly.

Honestly, I'm not as worried with the offense if the Spurs have Tony starting. I'm worried about attention to detail, finding the requisite spacing to prevent igniting the Suns transition with deflections; poor floor-balance that leads to poor shots and rebounds to run off; I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Tim to control pace, tempo and draw fouls; and they must run the ball back down the Suns' throats in transition with Tony and George, while looking to finish at the rim for layups or dunks -- not jumpers or threes. Run for layups and dunks (and I could do without seeing Manu taking the amount of ill-advised threes he took last night).

[Russ]

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson to camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence.

RJ shooting threes seems like a marginal approach. He is best driving and pulling up for mid-range jumpers (a lost art). Let someone else spot up. Bogans even.

Having waded thru all this . . stuff, here is what I would propose.

Start Duncan, Dyess, Parker, Bogans and whomever (RJ probably).

That should leave a lot of choices off the bench. Manu works well with anyone who's struggling offensively, so let that be your guide.

Let Bogans roam and take the pressure off Hill.

Mix it up in guarding Nash. Watch out for Hill, he's due.

Then tell me when to open my eyes and let me know what happened.

[Blackjack]

I don't completely hate the idea of simply substituting Parker for Hill and Bogans for Manu in Game 2; I'd have a short hook, though.

I just don't want to screw with George too much (changing positions, assignments, bench, starter, etc.) because the guy should be starting when they get back to the AT&T Center -- the homecourt does wonders for the inexperienced and youth.

[TD 21]

I'm wholeheartedly with you in the sentiment, but the reality is what it is.

I mean, yeah, you'd like to hear that Pop and/or Duncan would have a frank discussion with him, "Shoot the ball, pussy! How much are we paying your dainty ass?," but I just don't see that netting a boost in confidence or his three-point percentage. As Barkley would say, "I might be wrong, but I doubt it."



I don't see them being at some huge defecit, if one at all, for the first five-minutes or so. Their defense isn't going to be worse than what it started out yesterday with Tony on Nash and Bogans on Richardson or Hill, and I don't find it all that troubling to have George on either one for a few minutes; the Suns trying to exploit George works against them as far as I'm concerned -- that means they're in the halfcourt and Amar'e or Nash doesn't have the ball.



In theory, I agree with you. But if your five best players don't particularly mesh when it comes to skillset and there's only one ball, just having them out there doesn't mean your maximizing the talent's potential -- the Spurs have to create depth and get a better quality of contribution from the back half of their rotation with the schedule and the age of their best players. This is one of the better ways to do it, IMO.



Honestly, I'm not as worried with the offense if the Spurs have Tony starting. I'm worried about attention to detail, finding the requisite spacing to prevent igniting the Suns transition with deflections; poor floor-balance that leads to poor shots and rebounds to run off; I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Tim to control pace, tempo and draw fouls; and they must run the ball back down the Suns' throats in transition with Tony and George, while looking to finish at the rim for layups or dunks -- not jumpers or threes. Run for layups and dunks (and I could do without seeing Manu taking the amount of ill-advised threes he took last night).

Yeah, but this is new. This not even willing to stand behind the three point line nonsense. He wasn't doing this before. If anything, he was settling too much for the three and not driving enough. He knows the game, he probably just needs to be reminded that if he's not willing to stand there and shoot it when the shot is there, that it kills the spacing. They could easily point it out to him on film if he's not aware of it himself.

The other problem with your lineup is it allows Nash to rest on defense. By playing Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson together, the Suns have to pick their poison. He can't guard Parker and Ginobili off the dribble and would be physically over-matched guarding Jefferson. That matchup is too easy for Richardson. Who cares if they're in the half court and the ball isn't in Nash or Stoudemire's hands if they're getting easy shots all the same? I think Hill can adequately guard Nash going forward; physically, he has no chance against Richardson.

But how do we know that lineup wouldn't thrive together? It's been used so little this season and I'm fairly certain didn't start a single game together. It's like people who inexplicably criticize Mahinmi. We haven't seen enough to have a concrete opinion and even if you're right and it's not entirely ideal, wouldn't it at least cause some major problems for the opposition? That much talent on the floor at once. I'm not saying have it for 40 minutes a game. Like I said, start the first 5-6 minutes that way and see how it goes. If Pop works the rotation correctly, they can still have the depth that you're searching for. All he'd have to do is not stick with it for 9 or so minutes, like most teams do. But Pop already doesn't do that with the starters.

I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Duncan early and often as well. To me, the offense in this series should run through Duncan and Parker more so than Ginobili. I know he's the golden boy, but basketball is about matchups and capitalizing on ones that are favorable, while trying to find solutions (or even band-aids) for ones that are not favorable. I agree, Ginobili needs to cut down on the ridiculous threes and the ill-advised cross body pick-and-roll passes.



RJ shooting threes seems like a marginal approach. He is best driving and pulling up for mid-range jumpers (a lost art). Let someone else spot up. Bogans even.

Having waded thru all this . . stuff, here is what I would propose.

Start Duncan, Dyess, Parker, Bogans and whomever (RJ probably).

That should leave a lot of choices off the bench. Manu works well with anyone who's struggling offensively, so let that be your guide.

Let Bogans roam and take the pressure off Hill.

Mix it up in guarding Nash. Watch out for Hill, he's due.

Then tell me when to open my eyes and let me know what happened.

He needs to take the corner three when it's there for spacing purposes. Even if he shoots it at a poor percentage, it's important to take the shot when it's there, because if the defense doesn't have to respect even the threat of a shot, then they can easily help off of him to slow Parker and Ginobili's drives and to double Duncan on the block. If you're not willing to shoot, particularly in the playoffs, then you can't play.

[Blackjack]

Yeah, but this is new. This not even willing to stand behind the three point line nonsense. He wasn't doing this before. If anything, he was settling too much for the three and not driving enough. He knows the game, he probably just needs to be reminded that if he's not willing to stand there and shoot it when the shot is there, that it kills the spacing. They could easily point it out to him on film if he's not aware of it himself.

I agree that it's new, but what does that say? It seems to me the pressure of the playoffs is exposing him as the slasher he is and not the improved three-point shooter he was in Milwaukee (where he had a lot more touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and build his confidence). Pressure in basketball exposes and/or reveals character and forces players to revert to what they know best. RJ's a finisher and a slasher ... he just doesn't truly believe in his shot.


The other problem with your lineup is it allows Nash to rest on defense. By playing Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson together, the Suns have to pick their poison. He can't guard Parker and Ginobili off the dribble and would be physically over-matched guarding Jefferson. That match-up is too easy for Richardson. Who cares if they're in the half court and the ball isn't in Nash or Stoudemire's hands if they're getting easy shots all the same? I think Hill can adequately guard Nash going forward; physically, he has no chance against Richardson.

Would I love to have Nash getting his ass worn out every minute he's out there defensively? Sure. Would him being able to rest on Bogans for a couple of minutes deter me from my opinion. No, I definitely took that into consideration; it's about getting the Spurs to play their best and letting the chips fall where they may. This is simply the best template under the circumstance, IMO.

As for Richardson, I'm not going to allow a bad matchup to take my fourth best player off the court. The Spurs should be able to manage with their team defense and some better attention to detail. And with Hill playing off the ball, he becomes a mismatch himself. Speed kills ... and Tony and George should be able to get out in the open court and cause just as many problems for the Suns.


But how do we know that lineup wouldn't thrive together? It's been used so little this season and I'm fairly certain didn't start a single game together. It's like people who inexplicably criticize Mahinmi. We haven't seen enough to have a concrete opinion and even if you're right and it's not entirely ideal, wouldn't it at least cause some major problems for the opposition? That much talent on the floor at once. I'm not saying have it for 40 minutes a game. Like I said, start the first 5-6 minutes that way and see how it goes. If Pop works the rotation correctly, they can still have the depth that you're searching for. All he'd have to do is not stick with it for 9 or so minutes, like most teams do. But Pop already doesn't do that with the starters.

None of this is really known. It's speculation based on our own knowledge and our assessment of the talent. I just happen to believe the Spurs' best bet in this series is Tony and Tim, and allowing them to be the focal point to start is a prudent way to go.

If Manu and RJ are on the court, that's two more mouths to feed and two more guys who are better with the ball -- RJ's not a spot-up shooter and neither is Manu, really (he's capable but you want him creating more often than not). I just have a hard time believing their skillsets are capable of thriving and maximizing their potential all at the same time. Thus, if you get them off in tandems and they're able to find a rhythm or confidence with better quality opportunities, they're in better position to coexist effectively to finish the half and game together.


I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Duncan early and often as well. To me, the offense in this series should run through Duncan and Parker more so than Ginobili. I know he's the golden boy, but basketball is about matchups and capitalizing on ones that are favorable, while trying to find solutions (or even band-aids) for ones that are not favorable. I agree, Ginobili needs to cut down on the ridiculous threes and the ill-advised cross body pick-and-roll passes.

I stated before the series that, given the matchups, their best defense might actually be their offense. I stand by it.

It's always been important with the Suns, even if it looked like the Spurs were speeding up their play, to control the pace with their offense. They took advantage of the easy opportunities out in the open court, but they still pounded them inside; there were more possessions but the style didn't change ... it just became more opportunistic.

[TD 21]

I agree that it's new, but what does that say? It seems to me the pressure of the playoffs is exposing him as the slasher he is and not the improved three-point shooter he was in Milwaukee (where he had a lot more touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and build his confidence). Pressure in basketball exposes and/or reveals character and forces players to revert to what they know best. RJ's a finisher and a slasher ... he just doesn't truly believe in his shot.



Would I love to have Nash getting his ass worn out every minute he's out there defensively? Sure. Would him being able to rest on Bogans for a couple of minutes deter me from my opinion. No, I definitely took that into consideration; it's about getting the Spurs to play their best and letting the chips fall where they may. This is simply the best template under the circumstance, IMO.

As for Richardson, I'm not going to allow a bad matchup to take my fourth best player off the court. The Spurs should be able to manage with their team defense and some better attention to detail. And with Hill playing off the ball, he becomes a mismatch himself. Speed kills ... and Tony and George should be able to get out in the open court and cause just as many problems for the Suns.



None of this is really known. It's speculation based on our own knowledge and our assessment of the talent. I just happen to believe the Spurs' best bet in this series is Tony and Tim, and allowing them to be the focal point to start is a prudent way to go.

If Manu and RJ are on the court, that's two more mouths to feed and two more guys who are better with the ball -- RJ's not a spot-up shooter and neither is Manu, really (he's capable but you want him creating more often than not). I just have a hard time believing their skillsets are capable of thriving and maximizing their potential all at the same time. Thus, if you get them off in tandems and they're able to find a rhythm or confidence with better quality opportunities, they're in better position to coexist effectively to finish the half and game together.



I stated before the series that, given the matchups, their best defense might actually be their offense. I stand by it.

It's always been important with the Suns, even if it looked like the Spurs were speeding up their play, to control the pace with their offense. They took advantage of the easy opportunities out in the open court, but they still pounded them inside; there were more possessions but the style didn't change ... it just became more opportunistic.

Maybe. But like I said, Pop needs to give him an ultimatum: Either go behind the line and be willing, without hesitation, to shoot the open corner three if it's there, or don't play. It's real simple, you don't give him an option.

Allowing Nash to conserve energy early and probably get off offensively early again is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter who it is, basketball is a game of rhythm. You let any player, particularly one that good, get going early and they're gong to be more difficult to slow down late.

I'm not saying take him off the court, but there's no chance I'd start Hill at the two. Again, you let a player who's already scorching hot get off early, only bad things can happen. If the Spurs have to go to this matchup at certain points or even to close games in order to Hill to be on the court, fine, but not to start.

I know it's not known; that's what I'm saying. That lineup was actually very good together in game one, yet there's this notion that they can't play together because of the lack of spacing. I agree, Duncan and Parker should be the focal point, but what's wrong with Ginobili playing the spot up shooter role, at least to start? There's your guy who can space the floor. Play through them and let him spot up at the start, then get him out five-six minutes in and bring him back with the second unit a few minutes later, when he can be the primary creator. You're just making assumptions: "I have a hard time believing". But you don't know for certain.

They don't all have to thrive at once, just serve as a threat. The Suns, if they were determined to take Nash off Parker without taking him out of the game, would be forced to put him on Jefferson. He'd either take him into the post and score easily or draw the double and kick it out to an open shooter.

I agree about controlling the pace with their offense and that starts with pounding the ball into Duncan early and often.

[Blackjack]

Allowing Nash to conserve energy early and probably get off offensively early again is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter who it is, basketball is a game of rhythm. You let any player, particularly one that good, get going early and they're gong to be more difficult to slow down late.

But how did Nash get off to start? The Spurs were admittedly on their heels and taking by surprise at his aggression scoring-wise. They played him soft, or cold, and he burned them by getting to the cup for a handful of layup and-or easy shots. Nash took advantage of what the Spurs gave him -- don't give him the red carpet treatment to the bucket and he'll look to distribute more from the start.

And just because Bogans is on the court for a handful of minutes to start the game doesn't mean Nash is going to be able to rest the whole time he's out there; they're crossmatched so there should be some switches and there's always the ability to set a screen to force a switch. Nask is going to have to work because Tony's going to be playing around 40 min. and Hill's minutes should be in the 30's. It's just not that big of a concern for me to start the game; I have no desire to see Bogans playing significant minutes.


I know it's not known; that's what I'm saying. That lineup was actually very good together in game one, yet there's this notion that they can't play together because of the lack of spacing. I agree, Duncan and Parker should be the focal point, but what's wrong with Ginobili playing the spot up shooter role, at least to start? There's your guy who can space the floor. Play through them and let him spot up at the start, then get him out five-six minutes in and bring him back with the second unit a few minutes later, when he can be the primary creator. You're just making assumptions: "I have a hard time believing". But you don't know for certain.

No, neither of us do know for certain. We're speculating in what we've seen. I believe the Spurs would be better suited to have their lesser players play in the weakside role to start the game than to have one or two of their top five doing so. The Spurs have to find minutes for Bogans and whomever else somewhere and doing it the way I suggest benefits the individual and the collective over the course of the game, IMO -- Tim and Tony do their thing to start complimented by the likes of Bogans; then you go to the bench for Manu and RJ where you let Ginobili orchestrate (and I'd like to see Blair be a part of that with Duncan off the floor -- it's a good way to create some better quality from your depth); and then you unite them all to close the half and play the majority of the rest of the game -- it's the best way, IMO, to get the best balance, continuity and rhythm with this roster . . .

[TD 21]

But how did Nash get off to start? The Spurs were admittedly on their heels and taking by surprise at his aggression scoring-wise. They played him soft, or cold, and he burned them by getting to the cup for a handful of layup and-or easy shots. Nash took advantage of what the Spurs gave him -- don't give him the red carpet treatment to the bucket and he'll look to distribute more from the start.

And just because Bogans is on the court for a handful of minutes to start the game doesn't mean Nash is going to be able to rest the whole time he's out there; they're crossmatched so there should be some switches and there's always the ability to set a screen to force a switch. Nask is going to have to work because Tony's going to be playing around 40 min. and Hill's minutes should be in the 30's. It's just not that big of a concern for me to start the game; I have no desire to see Bogans playing significant minutes.



No, neither of us do know for certain. We're speculating in what we've seen. I believe the Spurs would be better suited to have their lesser players play in the weakside role to start the game than to have one or two of their top five doing so. The Spurs have to find minutes for Bogans and whomever else somewhere and doing it the way I suggest benefits the individual and the collective over the course of the game, IMO -- Tim and Tony do their thing to start complimented by the likes of Bogans; then you go to the bench for Manu and RJ where you let Ginobili orchestrate (and I'd like to see Blair be a part of that with Duncan off the floor -- it's a good way to create some better quality from your depth); and then you unite them all to close the half and play the majority of the rest of the game -- it's the best way, IMO, to get the best balance, continuity and rhythm with this roster . . .

What's your point?

Yes, that's exactly what it means and it's exactly why Bogans shouldn't be on the court to start. If the Spurs are going to go down (and it looks like they are), I want them to at least go down playing their best players extended minutes and playing them together. If that's not good enough, fine. But Bogans starting, I know that's not good enough.

The difference is I'm not pretending to know for certain, all I'm saying is they're the best players on the team (positionally), they've played very little together this season, there's sound logic in playing them together now and when they were played together in game one it was successful.

That all sounds great in the regular season. This is now desperation time. I don't care about balance, or getting other guys going, etc. I want the best players playing together and playing a lot. As many minutes as Bogans and the rest of the jokers that fill out this roster are off the floor, the better. You just hope that the good players get the team off to a good start and when the jokers come in for a brief stretch, they don't kill the team. If they do, you put the good players back in. To me, it really has come to that simplistic approach. I'm not advocating playing them all at once, of course. As I've said, Ginobili can come out early, play as a spot up shooter, then re-enter as the primary creator.

[Blackjack]

What's your point?

What's my point? Everything after the bold.

Bottom line, the Spurs aren't in a position to play a 6-man rotation over the course of this series and still have enough gas to pull it out -- they'd have a hard enough time if they had the rest and they weren't down 0-2.

And that's fine that you don't care about rhythm, balance or putting the players in the best position to find those things (it's your opinion and I can respect that), but I think it's pretty damn important; they need to spread out the trash and mix it in with the Big 3. Allowing Bogans to play on the weakside while the Spurs pound it into Tim and allow Tony to do his thing is not going to put the team in a hole, IMO. I don't see any reason why they couldn't get a lead with that group, as I have plenty of faith in Tim and Tony against Phoenix. There is only one ball.


The difference is I'm not pretending to know for certain, all I'm saying is they're the best players on the team (positionally), they've played very little together this season, there's sound logic in playing them together now and when they were played together in game one it was successful.

I don't understand where you're getting some kind of certainty from my comments. IMO = In my opinion; and I've stated that I'm doing nothing but speculating on what I've seen and basing it on the knowledge I've acquired over the years. It's an educated guess. We're shooting the shit, not solving equations.

[TD 21]

What's my point? Everything after the bold.

Bottom line, the Spurs aren't in a position to play a 6-man rotation over the course of this series and still have enough gas to pull it out -- they'd have a hard enough time if they had the rest and they weren't down 0-2.

And that's fine that you don't care about rhythm, balance or putting the players in the best position to find those things (it's your opinion and I can respect that), but I think it's pretty damn important; they need to spread out the trash and mix it in with the Big 3. Allowing Bogans to play on the weakside while the Spurs pound it into Tim and allow Tony to do his thing is not going to put the team in a hole, IMO. I don't see any reason why they couldn't get a lead with that group, as I have plenty of faith in Tim and Tony against Phoenix. There is only one ball.



I don't understand where you're getting some kind of certainty from my comments. IMO = In my opinion; and I've stated that I'm doing nothing but speculating on what I've seen and basing it on the knowledge I've acquired over the years. It's an educated guess. We're shooting the shit, not solving equations.

No, I mean the first paragraph. It doesn't really go against what I said, but you acted as if it did.

I never said play six; I've been advocating eight. News flash: They're also not in a position to start fringe NBA players or give any more minutes to scrubs like Bogans, Bonner or Mason, than necessary.

Either way they're probably doomed. All I'm saying is if that's going to be the case, at least go down playing your best players extended minutes together. It is going to put the team in a hole, because Bogans is a fringe player. You don't start him against a team with this type of firepower. Why can't Jefferson hang out on the weakside? At least he's a threat to drive their closeouts and either finish at the rim or get to the line.

I'm not getting certainty from your comments, I don't know where you got that from and I'm well aware of what that means. I just don't understand how you could completely disregard that much talent thriving at once (even though we've seen it at times), all because there isn't great three point shooting amongst the group and most of them are better with the ball than without it. You act like that means they can't succeed without the ball though; it doesn't.

[Blackjack]

No, I mean the first paragraph. It doesn't really go against what I said, but you acted as if it did.

Cool. Well I was responding to this:


Allowing Nash to conserve energy early and probably get off offensively early again is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter who it is, basketball is a game of rhythm. You let any player, particularly one that good, get going early and they're gong to be more difficult to slow down late.

You were talking about letting someone get off and find a rhythm, I simply pointed as to how that occurred. He didn't get hot because he wasn't having to defend someone, he got hot because the Spurs played him softly and poorly -- they were taken by surprise by their own admission. That's all I was getting at.


I never said play six; I've been advocating eight. News flash: They're also not in a position to start fringe NBA players or give any more minutes to scrubs like Bogans, Bonner or Mason, than necessary.

Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Hill, 'Dyess, Jefferson, Blair and ... Bonner? Bogans? Mason? Temple? A little T. H. C. :smokin

Point is, they need another shooter on the perimeter and Bonner's been useless. So if he's in the 8-man rotation, what's that really going to do? It's not like he helps the cause in any other facet of the game. They've basically got to have a 9-man rotation because you can't count on the eighth-man. I'd also prefer they had someone on the perimeter to give Manu a blow and not have him playing 40-minutes, but that seems just about impossible -- Ginobili usually gives you diminishing returns once his numbers get into that range.


Either way they're probably doomed. All I'm saying is if that's going to be the case, at least go down playing your best players extended minutes together. It is going to put the team in a hole, because Bogans is a fringe player. You don't start him against a team with this type of firepower. Why can't Jefferson hang out on the weakside? At least he's a threat to drive their closeouts and either finish at the rim or get to the line.

Arranging chairs on the Titanic ... that's what it feels like right about now. I'm simply suggesting what I believe is the best way to get the most out of their talent and give them the best chance to win a game and hopefully the series. I understand your stance, we all want to see the best talent possible playing all 48-minutes. But there's extenuating circumstances that we've all got to take into consideration in order to assess how it is to best navigate them. I believe this team has to get something from a few of their players outside the top six, not unlike what we're seeing from the Suns, and I'm simply stating what I believe is the best way to accomplish that. It seems an effort in futility, since the Spurs just don't seem to have the weapons, but getting by without them isn't something I believe to be feasible.


I'm not getting certainty from your comments, I don't know where you got that from and I'm well aware of what that means. I just don't understand how you could completely disregard that much talent thriving at once (even though we've seen it at times), all because there isn't great three point shooting amongst the group and most of them are better with the ball than without it. You act like that means they can't succeed without the ball though; it doesn't.
This is what I was referring to.


You're just making assumptions: "I have a hard time believing". But you don't know for certain.

As for not believing they can thrive together, that's not what I was implying. I simply believe it's better, and easier, for players to find their rhythm and get into a flow when they're getting consistent touches and are the focal point of the offense. Simply putting more talent out on the floor doesn't make the team necessarily more potent -- you need players to play roles and sometimes you just need them to get out of the way. Ginobili and Jefferson aren't role players. In the case of Manu, you can't have him an afterthought or waste his minutes having watch the show, so to speak. I'm not saying they can't play together, I'm saying for the purposes of this series Tim and Tony should be the guys the Spurs are looking to ride. They need to get out of the gate with them and set the tone. Once that happens, you hand the reins over to Manu and let him get RJ and possibly Blair rolling; everyone gets their touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and confidence, and that will hopefully carry over to end the half and eventually the game.

My only intention is to put the individual players in the best position possible to play to the best of their ability. And I believe giving players more quality looks and touches, where they're not playing on the weakside and a bit of an afterthought, is the best way to do it. Once they've broken the proverbial sweat and have had the opportunities to find that rhythm, then you put the puzzle together (whether it's worked out the way you hoped or not).

Ain't no certainty in basketball, you just control what you can control and put your team in the best position possible to succeed -- that's all I'm trying to do.

[TD 21]

Cool. Well I was responding to this:



You were talking about letting someone get off and find a rhythm, I simply pointed as to how that occurred. He didn't get hot because he wasn't having to defend someone, he got hot because the Spurs played him softly and poorly -- they were taken by surprise by their own admission. That's all I was getting at.



Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Hill, 'Dyess, Jefferson, Blair and ... Bonner? Bogans? Mason? Temple? A little T. H. C. :smokin

Point is, they need another shooter on the perimeter and Bonner's been useless. So if he's in the 8-man rotation, what's that really going to do? It's not like he helps the cause in any other facet of the game. They've basically got to have a 9-man rotation because you can't count on the eighth-man. I'd also prefer they had someone on the perimeter to give Manu a blow and not have him playing 40-minutes, but that seems just about impossible -- Ginobili usually gives you diminishing returns once his numbers get into that range.



Arranging chairs on the Titanic ... that's what it feels like right about now. I'm simply suggesting what I believe is the best way to get the most out of their talent and give them the best chance to win a game and hopefully the series. I understand your stance, we all want to see the best talent possible playing all 48-minutes. But there's extenuating circumstances that we've all got to take into consideration in order to assess how it is to best navigate them. I believe this team has to get something from a few of their players outside the top six, not unlike what we're seeing from the Suns, and I'm simply stating what I believe is the best way to accomplish that. It seems an effort in futility, since the Spurs just don't seem to have the weapons, but getting by without them isn't something I believe to be feasible.


This is what I was referring to.



As for not believing they can thrive together, that's not what I was implying. I simply believe it's better, and easier, for players to find their rhythm and get into a flow when they're getting consistent touches and are the focal point of the offense. Simply putting more talent out on the floor doesn't make the team necessarily more potent -- you need players to play roles and sometimes you just need them to get out of the way. Ginobili and Jefferson aren't role players. In the case of Manu, you can't have him an afterthought or waste his minutes having watch the show, so to speak. I'm not saying they can't play together, I'm saying for the purposes of this series Tim and Tony should be the guys the Spurs are looking to ride. They need to get out of the gate with them and set the tone. Once that happens, you hand the reins over to Manu and let him get RJ and possibly Blair rolling; everyone gets their touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and confidence, and that will hopefully carry over to end the half and eventually the game.

My only intention is to put the individual players in the best position possible to play to the best of their ability. And I believe giving players more quality looks and touches, where they're not playing on the weakside and a bit of an afterthought, is the best way to do it. Once they've broken the proverbial sweat and have had the opportunities to find that rhythm, then you put the puzzle together (whether it's worked out the way you hoped or not).

Ain't no certainty in basketball, you just control what you can control and put your team in the best position possible to succeed -- that's all I'm trying to do.

Thank you for explaining to me what occurred, because I had no idea whatsoever. Where did I say "Nash got hot because he didn't have to defend someone"?

Bogans would be my eighth. They may need another shooter, but they don't have another shooter. You don't just play someone, because they're technically known as a shooter. Bonner has proven unequivocally that he can't shoot in the pressure cooker that is the playoffs. So seven and eight are already useless and you think this makes it a good idea to go to nine? I don't care about balance or resting players at this point, it's about having as few of the scrubs on the court as possible. Hopefully in their limited minutes they don't kill the team, but I wouldn't play more of them or start one of them at the expense of having the best possible lineup out there a lot of the time. Ginobili will have to suck it up and play close to what star players play in the playoffs, even if it's not ideal for him. Too bad if his play suffers. Duncan, on bad knees with quad tendonosis has twice this playoffs gutted out an entire half.

That's all I'm suggesting as well, but you've gone timvp on me, seemingly incensed that I'd even have the audacity to challenge you. Few being the key word there. What's wrong with two more, rather than three?

Fine (in terms of what you were referring to). Maybe you're not in love with that lineup or want to balance it out better, I get that, but to act like it makes no sense doesn't make sense. On this team, Jefferson is a role player and Ginobili, at various points in his career, has been too. How quickly you forget that it wasn't that long ago that he was the clear third wheel and often fed off of Duncan or Parker. Think back to the '07 run, where he didn't come alive until well into the Suns series and even then, he was generally the third option throughout that run. The team lacks three-point shooting, so why not have him spot up to start and take more catch-and-shoot ones than off the dribble, step back ones? It's not wasting minutes, if anything, it allows him to not exert as much energy when on the court and isn't that what everyone is always worried about with him? We're saying the same thing: Play through Duncan and Parker, then hand the reins over to Ginobili.

They can all have quality looks and touches playing together and no one should have to exert too much energy carrying the team. Look at last game, the Spurs came out early and set two plays for Jefferson to get him off early and what followed? He went on to have a productive game. And it didn't take a bunch of scrubs surrounding him for him to do this.

That's all I'm trying to do too, I just think it should be done a different way, which you either can't seem to grasp, accept or both.

[Blackjack]

First off, you gotta help me with the quoting, bro. I wasn't incensed at the conversation, I just responded quickly and misinterpreted a particular statement. It's a pain in the ass and tough on me to respond as quickly as I'd like having to keep scrolling up to find my place -- I'm sure it's not all that difficult for some but it's obviously causing me some confusion. If you could just single out what you want to debate or do something similar to what I do I'd much appreciate it.


Thank you for explaining to me what occurred, because I had no idea whatsoever. Where did I say "Nash got hot because he didn't have to defend someone"?

I believe your initial argument (or one of) was that Bogans starting meant Nash would be resting, so that was more than enough reason to nix the idea -- I don't feel like going back and reading all of this at the moment, but there was an argument to something of the effect. That's where my response was coming from.


Bogans would be my eighth. They may need another shooter, but they don't have another shooter. You don't just play someone, because they're technically known as a shooter.

You're just missing my point. I don't feel the need to play Bogans for his shooting prowess or offensive ability. But I do believe the Spurs have to get a contribution from him if they want to win -- the Suns have edged the Spurs because they've had their role players step up. And since I think we can both agree Bonner and Mason aren't going to give the Spurs much of anything -- even assuming they warranted the playing time -- it's got to come from Bogans, Temple or Hairston (and the latter two I highly doubt see minutes with Pop at the helm). The Spurs, like it or not, can't outplay both the Suns starters and second unit with only their top 6 or 7 players. Matchups won't allow it ... their stamina won't allow it. I know you're going to say "fuck stamina" or "tough shit" but it is what it is -- you can't manipulate the E on the gas tank. So the Spurs need a contribution from Bogans. They need him to have a Udoka-like impact against New Orleans in '08. I've told you how I believe the best way to do that is, you disagree. That's fine; just don't confuse my reasons to give him time: Necessary evil -- he's a meat shield not a weapon.


Bonner has proven unequivocally that he can't shoot in the pressure cooker that is the playoffs. So seven and eight are already useless and you think this makes it a good idea to go to nine? I don't care about balance or resting players at this point, it's about having as few of the scrubs on the court as possible. Hopefully in their limited minutes they don't kill the team, but I wouldn't play more of them or start one of them at the expense of having the best possible lineup out there a lot of the time. Ginobili will have to suck it up and play close to what star players play in the playoffs, even if it's not ideal for him. Too bad if his play suffers. Duncan, on bad knees with quad tendonosis has twice this playoffs gutted out an entire half.

I didn't mean they need to play 8 or 9 as a full rotation. What I was trying to get at was there's a great possibility that the eighth man would be a failure requiring you to look for someone else. You just can't count on Bonner, Bogans or Blair to be there to bridge the gap. They need someone to give them something. Someone -- that at a minimum -- can tread water with there minutes. Someone to knock a couple of shots down or play some solid D. Something -- hopefully the friendly confines will remedy the play to some degree.


Fine (in terms of what you were referring to). Maybe you're not in love with that lineup or want to balance it out better, I get that, but to act like it makes no sense doesn't make sense. On this team, Jefferson is a role player and Ginobili, at various points in his career, has been too. How quickly you forget that it wasn't that long ago that he was the clear third wheel and often fed off of Duncan or Parker. Think back to the '07 run, where he didn't come alive until well into the Suns series and even then, he was generally the third option throughout that run. The team lacks three-point shooting, so why not have him spot up to start and take more catch-and-shoot ones than off the dribble, step back ones? It's not wasting minutes, if anything, it allows him to not exert as much energy when on the court and isn't that what everyone is always worried about with him? We're saying the same thing: Play through Duncan and Parker, then hand the reins over to Ginobili.

I think I've probably addressed this in prior comments or in this reply, so I won't expound much. It's not about the Spurs' best players, it's the need for their role players to contribute. Balancing that with the best way to utilize the talent in the best, most efficient and fruitful manner is what I'm trying to discern. That's the reasoning for my lineup suggestion -- one of two lineups that's borne quantifiable success -- and it's basis of my debate. I'm trying to make chicken salad and it looks like we're left with chicken shit.


They can all have quality looks and touches playing together and no one should have to exert too much energy carrying the team. Look at last game, the Spurs came out early and set two plays for Jefferson to get him off early and what followed? He went on to have a productive game. And it didn't take a bunch of scrubs surrounding him for him to do this.

Again, I believe I've addressed this but if I haven't, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'm just trying to account for as many variables as possible and find the best balance -- for the team and individuals -- that'll aid them in their effort moving forward. You disagree, cool -- it makes these conversations much more interesting. :lol

[TD 21]

I believe your initial argument (or one of) was that Bogans starting meant Nash would be resting, so that was more than enough reason to nix the idea -- I don't feel like going back and reading all of this at the moment, but there was an argument to something of the effect. That's where my response was coming from.I see. It all makes sense now.


You're just missing my point. I don't feel the need to play Bogans for his shooting prowess or offensive ability. But I do believe the Spurs have to get a contribution from him if they want to win -- the Suns have edged the Spurs because they've had their role players step up. And since I think we can both agree Bonner and Mason aren't going to give the Spurs much of anything -- even assuming they warranted the playing time -- it's got to come from Bogans, Temple or Hairston (and the latter two I highly doubt see minutes with Pop at the helm). The Spurs, like it or not, can't outplay both the Suns starters and second unit with only their top 6 or 7 players. Matchups won't allow it ... their stamina won't allow it. I know you're going to say "fuck stamina" or "tough shit" but it is what it is -- you can't manipulate the E on the gas tank. So the Spurs need a contribution from Bogans. They need him to have a Udoka-like impact against New Orleans in '08. I've told you how I believe the best way to do that is, you disagree. That's fine; just don't confuse my reasons to give him time: Necessary evil -- he's a meat shield not a weapon.I know you don't feel the need to play Bogans for those reasons, but those are precisely the reasons why I wouldn't start him. Particularly tomorrow. I expect a desperate Spurs team that jumps out to an early lead. Assuming they accomplish this, Bogans should be spotted in when they have a relatively comfortable lead and you just hope that in his five minute stint, that he doesn't kill the team. How did Udoka have that impact? Off the bench. I never confused your reasoning for giving him time, in fact I said I agree, I'd have him in my eight man rotation; just not starting.


I didn't mean they need to play 8 or 9 as a full rotation. What I was trying to get at was there's a great possibility that the eighth man would be a failure requiring you to look for someone else. You just can't count on Bonner, Bogans or Blair to be there to bridge the gap. They need someone to give them something. Someone -- that at a minimum -- can tread water with there minutes. Someone to knock a couple of shots down or play some solid D. Something -- hopefully the friendly confines will remedy the play to some degree.I know what you were getting at and I went along with this thinking...until recently. These guys are so bad that I think one just flat out has to be cut out of the rotation and that one is Bonner. No more chances. His minutes should be given to McDyess and Blair. Blair is an insanely productive per minute scorer and rebounder. Whether you think he's in over his head as a rookie in this situation or not, matchup wise this is a good series for him, but more than that he's just due for a game where he scores and racks up rebounds.


I think I've probably addressed this in prior comments or in this reply, so I won't expound much. It's not about the Spurs' best players, it's the need for their role players to contribute. Balancing that with the best way to utilize the talent in the best, most efficient and fruitful manner is what I'm trying to discern. That's the reasoning for my lineup suggestion -- one of two lineups that's borne quantifiable success -- and it's basis of my debate. I'm trying to make chicken salad and it looks like we're left with chicken shit.I'm past that point. It's about playing the best players together for a lot of minutes, spotting in two others (because, as you say, it's a "necessary evil") and hoping that in their stints they don't kill the team. But what the team probably can't afford at this point is getting off to a poor start and I think starting one of the scrubs would increase the odds of that.


Again, I believe I've addressed this but if I haven't, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'm just trying to account for as many variables as possible and find the best balance -- for the team and individuals -- that'll aid them in their effort moving forward. You disagree, cool -- it makes these conversations much more interesting.:lol

Nope, you didn't address this one and it's an indisputable point. It flies in the face of your argument. I think you're over thinking things and trying to relate how the Spurs functioned in the past to now. The problem with that is this is a completely different team.

[Blackjack]

I know you don't feel the need to play Bogans for those reasons, but those are precisely the reasons why I wouldn't start him. Particularly tomorrow. I expect a desperate Spurs team that jumps out to an early lead. Assuming they accomplish this, Bogans should be spotted in when they have a relatively comfortable lead and you just hope that in his five minute stint, that he doesn't kill the team. How did Udoka have that impact? Off the bench. I never confused your reasoning for giving him time, in fact I said I agree, I'd have him in my eight man rotation; just not starting.

Right, Udoka came off the bench. But I feel Bogans' best opportunity for success in aiding the cause is with Tim and Tony. I just happen to believe that the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup is one that gets the team off to a solid start and that second unit comes in and wreaks havoc -- if you don't have separation from the first unit, it's quite feasible you get it with your second; the Spurs found success and a rhythm with it before Tony went down. I think our biggest point of contention is the first five-minutes and what we perceive the lineup's outcome to be. I simply don't believe what I'm suggesting puts them in the hole or at a disadvantage to start the game.


I know what you were getting at and I went along with this thinking...until recently. These guys are so bad that I think one just flat out has to be cut out of the rotation and that one is Bonner. No more chances. His minutes should be given to McDyess and Blair. Blair is an insanely productive per minute scorer and rebounder. Whether you think he's in over his head as a rookie in this situation or not, matchup wise this is a good series for him, but more than that he's just due for a game where he scores and racks up rebounds.

If the Spurs can get away with doing it, I'm all for it. I just find it hard to believe Pop can ride these players to four wins in their next five playing every-other-day with that short of a rotation, or without getting a contribution from those type of players. I'm pretty confident for Game 3 and 4 but there isn't a bone in my body that believes the Spurs are going to win a conference semifinal without the emergence of a lesser role player or two. I hope I'm wrong, history just tells me otherwise -- the playoffs have a way of exposing teams the deeper they go ... the Spurs' role-players have been done exposed.


I'm past that point. It's about playing the best players together for a lot of minutes, spotting in two others (because, as you say, it's a "necessary evil") and hoping that in their stints they don't kill the team. But what the team probably can't afford at this point is getting off to a poor start and I think starting one of the scrubs would increase the odds of that.

This leads me to believe we're actually closer than I thought. I agree with all of that, the exception being the start of the game (but I just addressed that).


Nope, you didn't address this one and it's an indisputable point. It flies in the face of your argument. I think you're over thinking things and trying to relate how the Spurs functioned in the past to now. The problem with that is this is a completely different team.

I'm pretty sure I've addressed it but what the hell ... I'm here. Ain't got shit to do (besides drink a beer or two), so here we go . . .

How do you figure (that it flies in the face of my argument)? My approach is one that's not as shortsighted for the game. It's not about instant gratification or shooting your wad before halftime. The Spurs came out and really made a point of going to Tim, and yes, RJ got some things to go for him, but Manu took a backseat and the team ended up blowing the lead they had when they had to really go to the bench.

See, I'm looking at this -- as it pertains to a single game -- big picture. I'm looking for the Spurs to build as the game goes and play a steady and consistent game, one with minimized ebbs and flows, that has the individual and the team, as collective, playing their best ball come the fourth quarter. I'll take a lesser percentage chance of going up 10-12 early if I believe I'll have a lead or a chance to win with my players and their team playing their best when it counts. I'll take Ginobili coming in off the bench after being able to get a read on the game and immediately being handed the reins to be the head of the snake. I'll take the prospect of a more confident and more involved Blair off the bench because he's been paired with Manu -- a means to create a better quality of their limited depth. I'll live with the results of an RJ who doesn't get to start but plays with Ginobili and gets better opportunities -- for all of his breakthrough offense ... the guy's defense more than negated it. Simply put, I just flat-out believe that the lineup Pop settled on before Tony went down is the best way to get the most out of the individuals and their best option moving forward. They need balance. They need more contributions from their role players. And even if the only role player to actually get off in this scenario is Blair ... that's one more player than they have now.

[J.T.]

It's been broke since five minutes into Game 1.

[TD 21]

[quote=Blackjack;4323008]Right, Udoka came off the bench. But I feel Bogans' best opportunity for success in aiding the cause is with Tim and Tony. I just happen to believe that the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup is one that gets the team off to a solid start and that second unit comes in and wreaks havoc -- if you don't have separation from the first unit, it's quite feasible you get it with your second; the Spurs found success and a rhythm with it before Tony went down. I think our biggest point of contention is the first five-minutes and what we perceive the lineup's outcome to be. I simply don't believe what I'm suggesting puts them in the hole or at a disadvantage to start the game.

To me that's too far back and the sample size was too small to say, "let's go back to that because it had (brief) success". The first five minutes are definitely out biggest point of contention. I believe it's vital, particularly at home when you're the team without home court in the series and are now down 2-0, to get off to a good start. Not that I believe this team would quit if they didn't, but at the same time it's already going to be an uphill battle; that hill will only look more daunting to climb with a slow start and as I said, starting a player that minimal against a team with this type of firepower, I believe, increases the odds of a slow start.



[quote=Blackjack;4323008]If the Spurs can get away with doing it, I'm all for it. I just find it hard to believe Pop can ride these players to four wins in their next five playing every-other-day with that short of a rotation, or without getting a contribution from those type of players. I'm pretty confident for Game 3 and 4 but there isn't a bone in my body that believes the Spurs are going to win a conference semifinal without the emergence of a lesser role player or two. I hope I'm wrong, history just tells me otherwise -- the playoffs have a way of exposing teams the deeper they go ... the Spurs' role-players have been done exposed.

For the next two games, they've probably got to do it to win. You don't leave months and months of hard work and preparation to chance by attempting to squeeze a few more minutes out of scrubs. If the Spurs win these next two, then game five becomes like the Mavs series. Take your chances early, if it looks bleak pull the plug and rest the key players for game six. Then if they win that, they get two days off before game seven. I think it is feasible to get by on eight and too risky at this juncture to attempt to get by on any more than that.



[quote=Blackjack;4323008]This leads me to believe we're actually closer than I thought. I agree with all of that, the exception being the start of the game (but I just addressed that).

That's what I was saying in a previous post, we actually agree on quite a bit of this.



[quote=Blackjack;4323008]I'm pretty sure I've addressed it but what the hell ... I'm here. Ain't got shit to do (besides drink a beer or two), so here we go . . .

How do you figure (that it flies in the face of my argument)? My approach is one that's not as shortsighted for the game. It's not about instant gratification or shooting your wad before halftime. The Spurs came out and really made a point of going to Tim, and yes, RJ got some things to go for him, but Manu took a backseat and the team ended up blowing the lead they had when they had to really go to the bench.

See, I'm looking at this -- as it pertains to a single game -- big picture. I'm looking for the Spurs to build as the game goes and play a steady and consistent game, one with minimized ebbs and flows, that has the individual and the team, as collective, playing their best ball come the fourth quarter. I'll take a lesser percentage chance of going up 10-12 early if I believe I'll have a lead or a chance to win with my players and their team playing their best when it counts. I'll take Ginobili coming in off the bench after being able to get a read on the game and immediately being handed the reins to be the head of the snake. I'll take the prospect of a more confident and more involved Blair off the bench because he's been paired with Manu -- a means to create a better quality of their limited depth. I'll live with the results of an RJ who doesn't get to start but plays with Ginobili and gets better opportunities -- for all of his breakthrough offense ... the guy's defense more than negated it. Simply put, I just flat-out believe that the lineup Pop settled on before Tony went down is the best way to get the most out of the individuals and their best option moving forward. They need balance. They need more contributions from their role players. And even if the only role player to actually get off in this scenario is Blair ... that's one more player than they have now.

It flies in the face of your argument because you have this idea that Jefferson thrives with the ball and that he can't do that by playing with all of Duncan, McDyess, Ginobili and Parker, at once. But in the example I gave, he was playing with three of the four at the time (Hill was in for Parker). Like I said, in my lineup, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. It doesn't have to be an either/or. All that has to occur is Ginobili has to be pulled roughly halfway through the first and third quarters, then he can re-enter a few minutes later to be the primary creator for the second unit. So start him off primarily as a spot up shooter (with some pick-and-roll opportunities), then play with the ball primarily in his hands later.

That's what I'm looking to do as well, just with a different rotation. In my proposed rotation, Ginobili would play with Blair. I don't think the Spurs can afford to, against a team with this much firepower, not start two of their top five scorers.

[TD 21]

Right, Udoka came off the bench. But I feel Bogans' best opportunity for success in aiding the cause is with Tim and Tony. I just happen to believe that the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup is one that gets the team off to a solid start and that second unit comes in and wreaks havoc -- if you don't have separation from the first unit, it's quite feasible you get it with your second; the Spurs found success and a rhythm with it before Tony went down. I think our biggest point of contention is the first five-minutes and what we perceive the lineup's outcome to be. I simply don't believe what I'm suggesting puts them in the hole or at a disadvantage to start the game.

To me that's too far back and the sample size was too small to say, "let's go back to that because it had (brief) success". The first five minutes are definitely out biggest point of contention. I believe it's vital, particularly at home when you're the team without home court in the series and are now down 2-0, to get off to a good start. Not that I believe this team would quit if they didn't, but at the same time it's already going to be an uphill battle; that hill will only look more daunting to climb with a slow start and as I said, starting a player that minimal against a team with this type of firepower, I believe, increases the odds of a slow start.



If the Spurs can get away with doing it, I'm all for it. I just find it hard to believe Pop can ride these players to four wins in their next five playing every-other-day with that short of a rotation, or without getting a contribution from those type of players. I'm pretty confident for Game 3 and 4 but there isn't a bone in my body that believes the Spurs are going to win a conference semifinal without the emergence of a lesser role player or two. I hope I'm wrong, history just tells me otherwise -- the playoffs have a way of exposing teams the deeper they go ... the Spurs' role-players have been done exposed.

For the next two games, they've probably got to do it to win. You don't leave months and months of hard work and preparation to chance by attempting to squeeze a few more minutes out of scrubs. If the Spurs win these next two, then game five becomes like the Mavs series. Take your chances early, if it looks bleak pull the plug and rest the key players for game six. Then if they win that, they get two days off before game seven. I think it is feasible to get by on eight and too risky at this juncture to attempt to get by on any more than that.



This leads me to believe we're actually closer than I thought. I agree with all of that, the exception being the start of the game (but I just addressed that).

That's what I was saying in a previous post, we actually agree on quite a bit of this.



I'm pretty sure I've addressed it but what the hell ... I'm here. Ain't got shit to do (besides drink a beer or two), so here we go . . .

How do you figure (that it flies in the face of my argument)? My approach is one that's not as shortsighted for the game. It's not about instant gratification or shooting your wad before halftime. The Spurs came out and really made a point of going to Tim, and yes, RJ got some things to go for him, but Manu took a backseat and the team ended up blowing the lead they had when they had to really go to the bench.

See, I'm looking at this -- as it pertains to a single game -- big picture. I'm looking for the Spurs to build as the game goes and play a steady and consistent game, one with minimized ebbs and flows, that has the individual and the team, as collective, playing their best ball come the fourth quarter. I'll take a lesser percentage chance of going up 10-12 early if I believe I'll have a lead or a chance to win with my players and their team playing their best when it counts. I'll take Ginobili coming in off the bench after being able to get a read on the game and immediately being handed the reins to be the head of the snake. I'll take the prospect of a more confident and more involved Blair off the bench because he's been paired with Manu -- a means to create a better quality of their limited depth. I'll live with the results of an RJ who doesn't get to start but plays with Ginobili and gets better opportunities -- for all of his breakthrough offense ... the guy's defense more than negated it. Simply put, I just flat-out believe that the lineup Pop settled on before Tony went down is the best way to get the most out of the individuals and their best option moving forward. They need balance. They need more contributions from their role players. And even if the only role player to actually get off in this scenario is Blair ... that's one more player than they have now.

It flies in the face of your argument because you have this idea that Jefferson thrives with the ball and that he can't do that by playing with all of Duncan, McDyess, Ginobili and Parker, at once. But in the example I gave, he was playing with three of the four at the time (Hill was in for Parker). Like I said, in my lineup, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. It doesn't have to be an either/or. All that has to occur is Ginobili has to be pulled roughly halfway through the first and third quarters, then he can re-enter a few minutes later to be the primary creator for the second unit. So start him off primarily as a spot up shooter (with some pick-and-roll opportunities), then play with the ball primarily in his hands later.

That's what I'm looking to do as well, just with a different rotation. In my proposed rotation, Ginobili would play with Blair. I don't think the Spurs can afford to, against a team with this much firepower, not start two of their top five scorers.