Spurs Defense: Players or Philosophy?

[benefactor]

This has been mentioned a couple of times before and just came up in another thread.

The Spurs have long be defined by defense. It is reason the four trophies exist in the case today. People everywhere credit a lot of this to Pop for his system and stress on defense. But over the past few seasons, Spurs defense is something we have seen very little of. This has coincided with the departure of one of the best perimeter defenders of his era, Bruce Bowen, and the decline of of one of the best interior defenders of his era, Tim Duncan.

So now the question...is it more the players or the system? Was Spurs defense more about having two huge defensive forces that could cover the shortcomings of the other players around them and less about Pop's system?

[HarlemHeat37]

It's a factor of both, even though that's a cop-out answer..

Last year's Spurs team finished 9th defensively, 6th the year before, and 3rd the year before..

This is impressive when you consider the rotation players the Spurs have been putting on the court in those years..terrible defenders(Finley, Mason), soft defenders(Bonner, Jefferson, Parker), average defenders as stoppers(Jefferson, Hill, Bogans, Udoka) and overall poor defenders(Blair)..all those guys were serious rotation players during the last few seasons..

The fact that the Spurs have been putting out players like that, and the fact that the Spurs' have had almost no length or athleticism, yet they still finish high in defensive rankings, means Pop's system still works well..

The Duncan-Bowen factor is obviously the difference in the Spurs being an above average/good defensive team to an elite team..Bowen is a top 2 perimeter defender of his generation, and Duncan is one of the best anchors of all-time..

Bowen's loss has been felt most in 1 on 1/isolation defense..last year's Spurs team was 27th in the NBA at defending 1 on 1/isolation plays, absolutely horrible for a playoff contender with high hopes..it is also felt in defending screens, where the Spurs ranked 18th..Bowen was always one of the best in the NBA at running around and fighting through the screen..

[MaNu4Tres]

It's a correlation of both but most importantly you need every player committed to defense (so most of the responsibility falls on the players). But in order to have a great defense you need the right personnel. Most importantly, you can't be undersized in the front-court where the most efficient area to score takes place (In the paint). In the NBA, size has mattered ever since the days of Wilt and Russel. Size is what can negate the oppositions conversions in the most efficient area to score. And that is the reason why Spurs have regressed in recent years. They have been undersized in the front-court and they also lost one of the best perimeter defenders to ever lace them up ( who made it harder for the oppositions best perimeter scorer to get to the point or get high % shots).

Once you have the right personnel, you need these players to be moving as one on the defensive end. I don't believe you need a superior Bowen defender on the perimeter; but you need sometype of defensive go to guy so to speak. You also need all 5 guys on the same page that understand the task at hand ( through verbal communication and trust).

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).

It's a correlation of both-- but most importantly you need size and personnel. Then you need your players to be committed to the defensive end. You can't just have just some players on the court being committed, you need all five working in unison.

[ElNono]

I agree it's both. You need to have some kind of organization that gets everyone involved in the defensive duties, and distributes responsibility, but when everything else fails, the guys that are going to save your ass are your top defensive guys.

[Obstructed_View]

I'd go even further and say that Duncan's defense hasn't so much declined as been spread thin due to pairing him up with smaller players that can't block shots and can't defend the paint. To my knowledge, the worry about Duncan being in foul trouble against great players was never an issue prior to the 2006 postseason.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'd go even further and say that Duncan's defense hasn't so much declined as been spread thin due to pairing him up with smaller players that can't block shots and can't defend the paint. To my knowledge, the worry about Duncan being in foul trouble against great players was never an issue prior to the 2006 postseason.

And Splitter won't help that area of weakness according to El Nono, because technically there's no quantitative proof that proves that. :rolleyes

[lefty]

Players
Ever since Bowen retired, our D has been average

And it's no coincidence that we lost to the Suns without Bruce

[jjktkk]

It's a correlation of both but most importantly you need every player committed to defense (so most of the responsibility falls on the players). But in order to have a great defense you need the right personnel. Most importantly, you can't be undersized in the front-court where the most efficient area to score takes place (In the paint). In the NBA, size has mattered ever since the days of Wilt and Russel. Size is what can negate the oppositions conversions in the most efficient area to score. And that is the reason why Spurs have regressed in recent years. They have been undersized in the front-court and they also lost one of the best perimeter defenders to ever lace them up ( who made it harder for the oppositions best perimeter scorer to get to the point or get high % shots).

Once you have the right personnel, you need these players to be moving as one on the defensive end. I don't believe you need a superior Bowen defender on the perimeter; but you need sometype of defensive go to guy so to speak. You also need all 5 guys on the same page that understand the task at hand ( through verbal communication and trust).

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).

It's a correlation of both-- but most importantly you need size and personnel. Then you need your players to be committed to the defensive end. You can't just have just some players on the court being committed, you need all five working in unison.

The Celtics have a great sidekick bigman paired next to Garnett, in Kendrick Perkins. Perkins is a big, tough, physical center, who is a really good, tough, defender and who never has plays called for him, and never really looks to score. But actually how many Kendrick Perkins are out there for the Spurs to obtain? And as far as trying to find a Bruce Bowen out there, there isn't one. So we as Spurs can bitch and moan about the defensive shortcomings from this current Spurs team, but what exactly can the Spurs do, other than what there doing right now. Is Pop or RC suppose to somehow snap their fingers and poof come up with a Big, athletic, defensive center to pair alongside Duncan and also come up with a great perimeter defender who can defend anyone from Lebron to CP3?

[ElNono]

And Splitter won't help that area of weakness according to El Nono, because technically there's no quantitative proof that proves that. :rolleyes

I said it's not a given that he will, something you're seemingly convinced of.

You asked me not to twist your words, please have the courtesy to do the same with mine.

[MaNu4Tres]

I said it's not a given that he will, something you're seemingly convinced of.

You asked me not to twist your words, please have the courtesy to do the same with mine.

I'm convinced he has a better chance to help that area of weakness than Bonner can. It's not that hard to come to that consensus if you've seen the (lack of) interior defense when Bonner is on the floor.

I'm pretty sure the majority would agree.

Then again you view Splitter ultimately as the Spurs' 5th big.

I view Splitter as the 2nd-3rd big in the rotation when it's all said and done (if he stays healthy).

That's where our disagreement on this issue begins and obviously ends.

[ElNono]

I'm convinced he has a better chance to help that area of weakness than Bonner can. It's not that hard to come to that consensus if you've seen the (lack of) interior defense when Bonner is on the floor.
I'm pretty sure the majority would agree.

And as I've stated, I would be inclined to agree. However, at least to me, it's not a given than Bonner will be the minutes loser to Tiago. It's also not a given that Tiago will be so exceptional that he will absorb the entire system that it's seemingly so complex in his rookie season. If it's hard for RJ or Dice, both of whom have plenty of years of experience in the NBA, why would it be so much simpler for Tiago who has yet to step into an NBA court?

But you're correct we disagree what role Tiago will have. And we'll see as the season develops and by the time the playoffs roll around.

[ElNono]

The Celtics have a great sidekick bigman paired next to Garnett, in Kendrick Perkins. Perkins is a big, tough, physical center, who is a really good, tough, defender and who never has plays called for him, and never really looks to score. But actually how many Kendrick Perkins are out there for the Spurs to obtain? And as far as trying to find a Bruce Bowen out there, there isn't one. So we as Spurs can bitch and moan about the defensive shortcomings from this current Spurs team, but what exactly can the Spurs do, other than what there doing right now. Is Pop or RC suppose to somehow snap their fingers and poof come up with a Big, athletic, defensive center to pair alongside Duncan and also come up with a great perimeter defender who can defend anyone from Lebron to CP3?

My argument to this would be that re-signing soft defenders in RJ and Bonner into debatable contracts puts you squarely outside of any possibility to acquire any such defensively able players, should they become available.

[Man In Black]

The defensive philosophy of the San Antonio
Spurs starts with the answer to the
question: At which part of the court do we
begin to play defense? Full-court defense,
if played from one baseline to the other
one, is called “40”; if we play from the freethrow
line at the front half of the court we
call it “30,” from mid-court is “20,” and in
the shooting zone is called “10”.
Coach Dean Smith of the University of
North Carolina taught me this very simple
way to play defense and I have found that
the players easily understand it. If we are
playing against a team like the Los Angeles
Lakers that is not making too much transition,
but relies mainly on the set offense
around the lane, then we play a full-court
defense to use up their offensive time and
change their passing angles. We don’t let
them start their famous “triangle offense,”
but make them use up time in the front
court.

[duncan228]

Spurs' Popovich seeks small forward to 'spell defense' or shoot (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/spurs_popovich_seeks_small_forward_to_spell_defens e_or_shoot_104681669.html?showFullArticle=y)
By Jeff McDonald


“If I had my druthers, and it was a perfect world, I want Bruce Bowen to be 28 years old and back on our team,” Popovich said, echoing a persistent preseason theme.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/spurs_popovich_seeks_small_forward_to_spell_defens e_or_shoot_104681669.html?showFullArticle=y

[jjktkk]

My argument to this would be that re-signing soft defenders in RJ and Bonner into debatable contracts puts you squarely outside of any possibility to acquire any such defensively able players, should they become available.

Both RJ and Bonner were both signed to reasonable contracts. The Spurs could not afford to let RJ walk, since they have no starting caliber sf on their roster to replace him. Bonner was resigned because of his outside shooting. Please give me some names of "defensively able players" that the Spurs could of signed. The only guy I could think of was Raja Bell. And Bell has to prove that he can overcome his injuries and age. I can't come up with any defensive bigs, the Spurs could of signed. By reading your posts, you come across that it is so easy to find these defense oriented players, when in reality it is not.

[ElNono]

Both RJ and Bonner were both signed to reasonable contracts.

Debatable.


The Spurs could not afford to let RJ walk, since they have no starting caliber sf on their roster to replace him.

RJ would have been an expiring, meaning he was coming back. There's no way he's opting out if the Spurs don't have an offer on the table.


Bonner was resigned because of his outside shooting.

Which this team doesn't need from the 4/5 position at this time, IMO.


Please give me some names of "defensively able players" that the Spurs could of signed. The only guy I could think of was Raja Bell. And Bell has to prove that he can overcome his injuries and age. I can't come up with any defensive bigs, the Spurs could of signed. By reading your posts, you come across that it is so easy to find these defense oriented players, when in reality it is not.

RJ coming back gave the team time to find a better fit/replacement. We didn't have to make a deal this summer. Guys like Wilson Chandler could've been part of a deal. Guys are on the move all the time. Ariza swapped teams this summer. Houston talked about not renewing Battier. And you just don't know who else might be available come January. How many teams would be willing to do a trade for a $15 million expiring to be in the CP3 sweepstakes next summer?
By signing this contract the Spurs have basically saved tax money right now, but also written themselves off of actually addressing the wing situation when it comes to defense.
I also suspect Bonner will keep on playing his usual share of minutes. Why wouldn't he? He just got rewarded for doing what he does.
And that's without going into how contracts like RJ's or Bonner's will also have long term consequences and put pressure on things like re-siging Tony and renewing guys like Hill, as it's been stated plenty of times.

We're going in circles here. A lot of this has been already talked about in the RJ thread...

[Obstructed_View]

And Splitter won't help that area of weakness according to El Nono, because technically there's no quantitative proof that proves that. :rolleyes

Since you replied to my post to take a shot at Nono, allow me to retort: He's right. There isn't any proof. Splitter hasn't played in the NBA. At all. Not even preseason. Making a statement like you know what a rookie with no NBA experience is going to bring is just dumb. You need to accept that and move the fuck on.

Back to the topic, the other reason Splitter might not help that area of weakness is if Pop decides to make him a backup four and never pair him and Duncan together. Splitter has shown the ability to be a good shot blocker, and a good weak side shot blocker. I'd like to see the twin towers brought back just to see what they can do defensively. I suppose I techincally haven't mentioned the Splitter/Duncan/Blair frontcourt idea today, so here it is again. :)

[mountainballer]

it's the players.
the "system" has been constantly overrated, especially when people started to hope and search for points that the aging of Tim and Bruce won't affect the defense much.
what's the system?
take whatever team. the same team will be a better defensive team, if all players at least try to play defense. right?
so you don't need a system in the first place, you need a coach to install the right mentality for defense. or call it culture. that's what Pop is. he doesn't even need to ask for it. every player knows, if he doesn't try, he will loose PT or even his spot.
yes, of course there is also a lot of system. if players try, but run around like some chicks on speed, it won't help much. I don't try to deny this.
but on such a high level like the NBA, the "system" can only take you that far.
it's still the personnel in the first place and in the second place.
Spurs have been the best defensive team for years, b/c they had the best interior defender AND the best perimeter defender. the others at least did what they could.
put Tim and Bruce on any NBA team (2007 and younger versions) and that team will be at least a top 5 defensive team in the league.
and the reason why the Spurs, despite the decline of Tim and the retiring of Bruce are still top 10, is that Tim still is an elite defender overall and might still be the best defensive anchor, no matter how high DH can jump to block a shot.

that said, I really hope that the Spurs still try to find the often mentioned perimeter stopper. no "system" can replace that ability. and you also can't replace the psychological effect of putting a hound dog on someones ass. and therefore you need someone with the right reputation. best case it's someone like Bruce or Artest. if you don't got them, it should be at least some player like Battier, Wallace, Rondo, Bell etc.

[Bruno]

Philosophy is enough to be a good defensive team but you need the right players to be a great defensive team.

[Cane]

Its mostly the players imo:

http://mt.nesn.com/.a/6a0115709f071f970b0134870213bc970c-400wi

It really doesn't help that the Spurs best defensive player is only playing 32 mins per game in the regular season (but its worth it considering Duncan's mileage) and that the big 3 haven't really been healthy. However the Spurs have still been an above average team defensively and seemed great in the first round against the Mavs and in the playoffs Duncan plays much more minutes. Remarkable that the Spurs have been so competitive in the West while limiting Duncan's minutes and surrounding the often injured Big 3 with young talent.

[dunkman]

The Suns had various solid defensive players. Raja Bell, Diaw and Kurt Thomas to mention a few, but that team still had trouble playing defense.

On the other hand the Celtics starters are all great defensive players, they also use great defensive system, hence their defense is the best in the NBA.

So it's a combination of factors.

On the other hand, it's impossible to defend against a team like the Suns. What failed for the Spurs last season was the offense. In 2007, the Spurs were able to outscore the Suns and also to incite Amare and Diaw to be suspended for a game. The Lakers were able to outscore the Suns in 2010. Duncan missed way too many FT's, Parker was slowed down by injury, Manu was playing less aggressive with the broken nose, Mason Jr. didn't showup with anything, Hill didn't play as well against the Mavs, Dice looked old after that serie too.

The Spurs should be better with an elite wing defender, however the defense solidified last season during the rodeo trip. This will be the second season of this new group of role players and the defense should be better. The Spurs could get more points from Blair and he won't be a liability. Splitter is another very large body which will improve the interior presence. Jefferson should play better defense, also on offense. Anderson or Neal could be a solid addition offensively at least.

One important detail is that Dice is nearing the end of his career, which could be a problem. If he retire and Splitter fails to make impact, the Spurs will need to use their MLE for a big, once again missing the opportunity to get a top wing defender.

The NBA won't be the same for the 2010-2011 season. While the Lakers didn't improve much since the last season and the Celtics are not guaranteed to be better than last season, the Heat could be the best team in the NBA by considerable differences.

[Obstructed_View]

The Celtics got Ray Allen to play great defense. The system deserves some credit.

[ElNono]

The Celtics got Ray Allen to play great defense. The system deserves some credit.

I was gonna say. Ray really bought into the stopper role for the Finals at least.
And in their previous championship run, Posey actually played a big role for them in that capacity also.

[duncan228]

Pop Drops A Gem (http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=17580)
By: Bill Ingram
Hoopsworld

San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich is always good for a laugh, and he has a special way of looking at things that is always interesting. In talking about the Spurs' situation at small forward, where the team currently has no back-up for Richard Jefferson, Popovich pulled one of those gems out of his bag of quotes.

"If I had my druthers, and it was a perfect world, I want Bruce Bowen to be 28 years old and back on our team," Popovich told the San Antonio Express-News recently (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs_popovich_seeks_small_forward_to_spell_defens e_or_shoot_104681669.html). "If I can get somebody who can at least spell defense and say the word once in a while, then I'll know they have some interest in it," he said.

Bobby Simmons is in camp with the Spurs and hopes to help them fill the void at small forward. He offered some further clarification of what Popovich is looking for at the three.

"Being a gnat on a guy's body, to where he gets tired of him being around you," Simmons said. "Bruce did a great job of that."

Bowen, of course, was never a great scorer. He had a knack for draining the corner three, but the reason he won championships in San Antonio is that he was a relentless defender, one who often had his opponents complaining to the nearest referee instead of focusing on the task at hand. More than that, Bowen was a great role player on a team that always had plenty of star power around him. Where Jefferson has struggled to find his niche in the Spurs' offense, Bowen was happy to hit an open three from time to time, but really hung his hat on his defense.

So far, that's what's missing in San Antonio, and if they're going to compete for another championship before Tim Duncan joins Bowen on the sidelines they need a solution that doesn't involve a DeLorean and a trip back to the future.

[ElNono]

On the other hand, it's impossible to defend against a team like the Suns. What failed for the Spurs last season was the offense.

I disagree with this assessment. The Spurs scored over 100 points in 3 out of the 4 games, which should be enough to win those games. The lack of solid perimeter defense was glaring. When Nash was schooling Hill, we had absolutely nobody to throw at him to cool him down afterwards. Same thing when Dragic caught fire. Guys like Dudley consistently beating Bonner for rebounds. We looked amateurish at times out there (the Dragic show in our building was outright embarrassing), and I don't think anybody had any questions when the sweep materialized.

[Dex]

Going to throw my card in the "Both" hat for this one, but I think they share a symbiotic relationship.

Obviously, our defensive talent has dwindled over the years. Instead of guarding the basket with the likes of David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, Robert Horry, and Bruce Bowen, we've been using Elson and Mason and Bogans and Zombie Dice. One would expect a considerable drop off with that kind of change of personnel.

Consider last season's team: nobody was a lock down defender. Duncan was aging, Ginobili was finding his groove, Parker seemed to have lost focus, Hill's defense was solid but overrated, and everybody else was either learning the system, getting old, or being Matt Bonner.

However, once that team was able to find its groove, even it was able to start putting pressure on opponents and go on a pretty amazing run through the end of the season and first round, and probably finished somewhere in the top 10 defensively despite a lack of defensive talent.

That leads me to believe that the system is obviously sound. It's the foundation of the Spurs philosophy, and still what earns Pop praise as one of the best defensive and overall coaches in the league.

But the right parts can really make the system shine, and I think that may be what it takes to make this team a Top 3 defensive squad again. David Robinson or Bruce Bowen aren't walking through those doors and Tim isn't getting any younger, so the Spurs either need to find some new defensive aces, or they better start getting used to defensive "mediocrity", which for this team still seems to be better than twenty other teams in the league.

[Nathan89]

I disagree with this assessment. The Spurs scored over 100 points in 3 out of the 4 games, which should be enough to win those games. The lack of solid perimeter defense was glaring. When Nash was schooling Hill, we had absolutely nobody to throw at him to cool him down afterwards. Same thing when Dragic caught fire. Guys like Dudley consistently beating Bonner for rebounds. We looked amateurish at times out there (the Dragic show in our building was outright embarrassing), and I don't think anybody had any questions when the sweep materialized.

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

[Dex]

Spurs used to be Ruth's Chris burgers; now we be eatin' McDonald's.

[Nathan89]

I disagree with this assessment. The Spurs scored over 100 points in 3 out of the 4 games, which should be enough to win those games. The lack of solid perimeter defense was glaring. When Nash was schooling Hill, we had absolutely nobody to throw at him to cool him down afterwards. Same thing when Dragic caught fire. Guys like Dudley consistently beating Bonner for rebounds. We looked amateurish at times out there (the Dragic show in our building was outright embarrassing), and I don't think anybody had any questions when the sweep materialized.

I must add that I do believe that the defense was equally responsible for the losses as the offense. The offense was terribly inefficient because of Rj. More misses equals more fast breaks. The defense was terrible but I have to give a lot of credit to the offense of the suns. They had four guys out there who could shoot the three and they were hitting all series. We just could not stop everyone when we collapsed on nash and stoudmire. In the past Kurt Thomas would torch the spurs with the mid-range shot and last year they had a big that could shoot the three consistently. So if you think about it we had to score well over 100pts to beat that team.

[ElNono]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

TBH, the Suns of the past didn't play the same ball that this Suns team. I think it was reflected in the 3 point shooting and what Amare used to average against us vs what he did average in these series. The Spurs also didn't play the same kind of ball as in the past either. I don't think it's really realistic to compare Suns series in the past with this one.


I must add that I do believe that the defense was equally responsible for the losses as the offense. The offense was terribly inefficient because of Rj. More misses equals more fast breaks. The defense was terrible but I have to give a lot of credit to the offense of the suns. They had four guys out there who could shoot the three and they were hitting all series. We just could not stop everyone when we collapsed on nash and stoudmire. In the past Kurt Thomas would torch the spurs with the mid-range shot and last year they had a big that could shoot the three consistently. So if you think about it we had to score well over 100pts to beat that team.

I can buy your premise that it was a combination of both. The thing is, I don't think this Spurs team has it in it to score 120+ consistently night in and out. I don't think they had it 5 years ago and I don't think they have it right now.
So the only thing you can do to make up for the difference is offset it with the defense.

[The Truth #6]

Obviously Pop always wants to focus on defense, but he's let the players become the philosophy to some degree.

He was lucky to have the twin towers...so then the twin towers became the foundation. After David left, Pop was left in a stupor and tried to keep it going with Rasho but that idea of the twin towers eventually faded away when reality set in that we weren't getting another Robinson. That probably should have been obvious. At the moment, we have Blair as our starting power forward. He isn't tall, but Pop has let him be the player who he is (for the most part) and played to his strengths.

Now, Pop is in a stupor trying to find the next Bowen. As with Robinson, it should be obvious this isn't happening. Yes, it's great to focus on defense but a lot of wasted energy and potential is spent trying to mold people and make them fit into the cinderella shoes. Right now Pop is trying to make RJ and Simmons into some version of Bowen. While I agree that RJ needed a refresher in fundamentals, this still strikes me as another case of forcing circle into a square peg.

We just need players who can contribute in some way, and if they have a particular talent, then be willing to adapt that into the "system". Simmons probably sucks on defense...but maybe he has a decent post game that could be utilized from the 3 position? Not saying he does per se, but we need to milk the most we can out of whatever talent we have at this point and be open to pursuing that approach. If this year is the window, fuck trying to mold players into something they aren't.

[silverblk mystix]

It is a little of both.

One thing that hasn't been said but it is pretty obvious;

it wasn't only that Bowen and Timmy were great defenders--it was that they were great defenders--and IN THEIR PRIME.

That in itself is why having the same system can lead the spurs to be a respectable defensive team-but I am not sure that will be enough. If only they had the pieces to be a dominant defensive team.
Unfortunately the offense becomes much more important because the defense will not hold anyone to 70-74 points. (on top of the fact that the NBA rules have also made it harder on defenses.)

[TD 21]

It's a factor of both, even though that's a cop-out answer..

Last year's Spurs team finished 9th defensively, 6th the year before, and 3rd the year before..

This is impressive when you consider the rotation players the Spurs have been putting on the court in those years..terrible defenders(Finley, Mason), soft defenders(Bonner, Jefferson, Parker), average defenders as stoppers(Jefferson, Hill, Bogans, Udoka) and overall poor defenders(Blair)..all those guys were serious rotation players during the last few seasons..

The fact that the Spurs have been putting out players like that, and the fact that the Spurs' have had almost no length or athleticism, yet they still finish high in defensive rankings, means Pop's system still works well..

The Duncan-Bowen factor is obviously the difference in the Spurs being an above average/good defensive team to an elite team..Bowen is a top 2 perimeter defender of his generation, and Duncan is one of the best anchors of all-time..

Bowen's loss has been felt most in 1 on 1/isolation defense..last year's Spurs team was 27th in the NBA at defending 1 on 1/isolation plays, absolutely horrible for a playoff contender with high hopes..it is also felt in defending screens, where the Spurs ranked 18th..Bowen was always one of the best in the NBA at running around and fighting through the screen..


It's a correlation of both but most importantly you need every player committed to defense (so most of the responsibility falls on the players). But in order to have a great defense you need the right personnel. Most importantly, you can't be undersized in the front-court where the most efficient area to score takes place (In the paint). In the NBA, size has mattered ever since the days of Wilt and Russel. Size is what can negate the oppositions conversions in the most efficient area to score. And that is the reason why Spurs have regressed in recent years. They have been undersized in the front-court and they also lost one of the best perimeter defenders to ever lace them up ( who made it harder for the oppositions best perimeter scorer to get to the point or get high % shots).

Once you have the right personnel, you need these players to be moving as one on the defensive end. I don't believe you need a superior Bowen defender on the perimeter; but you need sometype of defensive go to guy so to speak. You also need all 5 guys on the same page that understand the task at hand ( through verbal communication and trust).

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).

It's a correlation of both-- but most importantly you need size and personnel. Then you need your players to be committed to the defensive end. You can't just have just some players on the court being committed, you need all five working in unison.

Both excellent posts.


And as I've stated, I would be inclined to agree. However, at least to me, it's not a given than Bonner will be the minutes loser to Tiago. It's also not a given that Tiago will be so exceptional that he will absorb the entire system that it's seemingly so complex in his rookie season. If it's hard for RJ or Dice, both of whom have plenty of years of experience in the NBA, why would it be so much simpler for Tiago who has yet to step into an NBA court?

But you're correct we disagree what role Tiago will have. And we'll see as the season develops and by the time the playoffs roll around.

I suspect it'll be McDyess, at least for roughly the first half of the season.

Blair looks poised to challenge for Most Improved Player, Splitter needs minutes to acclimate himself and Bonner stretches the floor, but also he's in his prime and isn't a player the Spurs are going to be concerned with wearing down. I'm not advocating playing Bonner over McDyess, but considering McDyess' age, the fact that he has talked a few times about how hard it is on his body to play and that in order for the Spurs to legitimately contend for a championship, they'll likely need him to be the second or third big come playoff time, I suspect he won't play that much early. The odd game I presume he'll play 20-25 mpg, either when Duncan is getting a game off or having his minutes limited or to keep in shape.

[ElNono]

I suspect it'll be McDyess, at least for roughly the first half of the season.

Blair looks poised to challenge for Most Improved Player, Splitter needs minutes to acclimate himself and Bonner stretches the floor, but also he's in his prime and isn't a player the Spurs are going to be concerned with wearing down. I'm not advocating playing Bonner over McDyess, but considering McDyess' age, the fact that he has talked a few times about how hard it is on his body to play and that in order for the Spurs to legitimately contend for a championship, they'll likely need him to be the second or third big come playoff time, I suspect he won't play that much early. The odd game I presume he'll play 20-25 mpg, either when Duncan is getting a game off or having his minutes limited or to keep in shape.

I agree. I think Bonner will play his usual minutes. Maybe a bit less, if it's a blowout, but that's about it. I also fully expect Dice to take minutes away from Tiago once the playoffs roll around, unless Tiago manages to outperform Blair, in which case Blair will be the minute loser, IMO.

[Obstructed_View]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

Interesting point, but the Spurs' defense during many of those playoff matchups was geared to limit the Suns' three point opportunities. That damaged their ability to score severely. Many analysts predicted that the Spurs absolutely couldn't hang with the Suns offensively, which was wrong; the Spurs were also an underrated offensive team at that time. But their bread and butter was their defense. How have the Spurs done at limiting three point attempts in the playoffs the last few years?

[Ginobili2Duncan]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.



The Spurs scored 100+ points because the Suns were a poor defensive team during the D'Antoni era. They scored 100+ points this year because there were more possessions. They also let Nash and Stoudemire score while staying at home with their 3pt shooters. Then, in the 4th quarter, Bowen guarded Nash and Duncan guarded Stoudemire. If you are a poor defensive team in the regular season, you will have those same habits in the playoffs, and their opponent will get easier shots. In the playoffs, the games slow down, defenses tighten up, and the refs start to swallow their whistles; this obviously favors defensive teams. A good offensive team does not become a better offensive team in the postseason. This is why the Spurs were so successful against the Suns before last season.

[mountainballer]

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).


disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

[xellos88330]

The defensive system is solid. The personnel has been a bit lacking. By that I mean the defensive 3.

There have also been rule changes (I think), that make playing defense out on the perimeter much more difficult. So the average perimeter defender will not be able to play the type of physical pressure defense that Bowen would employ.

[Obstructed_View]

It's becoming increasingly clear that number 12 needs to be in the rafters. Removing the shot blocking from beside Duncan was bad, but Bowen was able not only able to prevent it from becoming a disaster, but he was able to help them win another title.

[#2!]

disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

To me, Rondo is the only guy you mentioned who the Spurs' roster can't definitively produce a relatively good counterpart for. Tim is in the same boat as KG, and actually we may find out this season that Splitter can be the defender needed next to Tim (not in the same ways of course, pn'r should be better, and he'll have to use footwork more than sheer strength (which I've heard he's good at)).

Allen's level matches Manu's (though again different strengths and weaknesses).

Pierce is a capable defender but not anything special, certainly no better than RJ has been at times in his career. Even though he couldn't be relied on last season I still believe he's an attitude adjustment away from being at least as good as Pierce probably better with proper commitment.

Tony Allen is a veteran, which always helps in defending, but George Hill has a commitment to defending. I know people on this site have begun to take digs at Hill for not being as good as advertised defensively, but I think they go to far, and forget he's still above average against 2 guards (his natural position). I think his physical abilities, along with a commitment to D that has been put in place by Pop convincing him he should be a stopper for the team, will only lead him to improvement on defense.

Outside of those guys I wouldn't say either O'Neal or Davis are better than McDyess or Blair. The Spurs have the tools to play tough, effective team defense.

[TD 21]

disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

None of those guys are Bowen-esque and the only one who resembles what Bowen brought in the slightest is T. Allen. Unfortunately for them, he's no longer on the team.

Pierce is an underrated defender, but he's not a stopper. And if the Celtics have him playing that role in the playoffs, even if he does a passable job of resembling one, he likely won't have the energy to also produce the type of offense they need out of him to win. They got away with it last year because James didn't have Wade and Bosh flanking him.

The Celtics are in the same boat as the Spurs when it comes to wing defense. You may like their options better than the Spurs, but there is no T. Allen or Pietrus or someone of that ilk.

[MaNu4Tres]

None of those guys are Bowen-esque and the only one who resembles what Bowen brought in the slightest is T. Allen. Unfortunately for them, he's no longer on the team.

Pierce is an underrated defender, but he's not a stopper. And if the Celtics have him playing that role in the playoffs, even if he does a passable job of resembling one, he likely won't have the energy to also produce the type of offense they need out of him to win. They got away with it last year because James didn't have Wade and Bosh flanking him.

The Celtics are in the same boat as the Spurs when it comes to wing defense. You may like their options better than the Spurs, but there is no T. Allen or Pietrus or someone of that ilk.

Yeah what he said. /\