Spurs O by the Daily Dime at that network

[Rummpd]

Nice write up about the Spurs dominant offense - when clicking like last PM

2. Parker, NBA-Leading Spurs Turning Up 'O'
By Timothy Varner
TrueHoop Network




With Sunday night's 109-84 defeat of the New Orleans Hornets, the San Antonio Spurs went to 14-0 when scoring 100 points or more. 14-0 is impressive, but what is, perhaps, more surprising is the Spurs are scoring 100 points or more with regularity and ease. In fact, going into this contest, San Antonio was averaging an eye-poppingly uncharacteristic 106.6 points per game.

What gives? Whatever happened to the slow and old, gritty but boring Spurs?

In an effort to keep up with Western Conference elites, Gregg Popovich and the Spurs' front office have redefined the team in recent offseasons, gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring.

Nearly every lineup the Spurs place on the floor features four capable shooters, and the Spurs lack a single five-man configuration that doesn't supply some offensive capability at every position.

The Spurs shot 11-22 on 3-point attempts against the Hornets, and much of that was fueled by a second-quarter unit of Gary Neal, Manu Ginobili, George Hill, Antonio McDyess and Matt Bonner, four of five of whom can dial from range. It was this unit which put the game away, scoring five 3-point baskets in the first 4:28 of the second quarter.

The Spurs' largest lead of the game was 38, which brings us back to the question of San Antonio's newfound offensive potency. San Antonio dealt 29 assists on 41 baskets. It's the epitome of cliche, but the Spurs share the basketball.

Tony Parker, in particular, elevates San Antonio's offense when he transforms his game from simply scoring the ball and becomes a scorer and a passer. Parker had six assists in 27 minutes against the Hornets. He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season.

The win against the Hornets provided a perfect case study on the refreshingly offensive-minded Spurs, and the game was a drawn-perfect diagram on how their offense has pushed San Antonio to a league-leading 17-3 record.
http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-101206/daily-dime

[boutons_deux]

"He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season"

When there are more FGs/game vs earlier seasons, understandable.

[dbestpro]

"He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season"


This is what most of the TP haters have been wanting from Tony all along, and the TP fans always made excuses saying this was not part of his game.

[Drachen]

actually, if I am not mistaken, most of the "tp fans" said it was not part of the system. I am sure that there is an isolated incident or two who said it wasn't part of his game, but from all that I read it seemed that they were leaning toward Pop's system was more predicated on getting the big man involved in the half court.

[benefactor]

In an effort to keep up with Western Conference elites, Gregg Popovich and the Spurs' front office have redefined the team in recent offseasons, gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring.
Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.

[MannyIsGod]

Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.
:depressed:depressed:depressed:depressed



I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.

[benefactor]

What about players that are liabilities in every other area besides offense? The Spurs have one of those that is playing significant minutes right now.

[MannyIsGod]

What about players that are liabilities in every other area besides offense? The Spurs have one of those that is playing significant minutes right now.

Well then obviously Pop hasn't moved away from them.

:lmao

[benefactor]

:depressed:depressed:depressed:depressed



I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.
Sure he was, but that doesn't mean he needs to be thrown under the bus to make some point about the Spurs current offensive surge. Do you not agree that he was an integral part of at least two of the championship teams?

[MannyIsGod]

Thrown under the bus? :lmao

Of course he was integral. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool who doesn't given Bowen his due. Luckily, the article does nothing of the sort. Saying that Bowen as an offensive liability is the truth. Saying that pop has moved away from a player like that is the truth. I have no idea why you think thats being thrown under a bus.

[benefactor]

Thrown under the bus? :lmao

Of course he was integral. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool who doesn't given Bowen his due. Luckily, the article does nothing of the sort. Saying that Bowen as an offensive liability is the truth. Saying that pop has moved away from a player like that is the truth. I have no idea why you think thats being thrown under a bus.
That's actually not completely accurate. Matt Bonner can easily become an offensive liability if his shot is not falling. At least Bruce could still impact the game even if his corner 3 was off.

IMO it is disrespectful to single out Bruce as any type of liability. True fans of this team know that he was the heart and soul of what Spurs basketball was all about.

[it's me]

This is what most of the TP haters have been wanting from Tony all along, and the TP fans always made excuses saying this was not part of his game.

To Tony :toast...................................:flag:

[ajh18]

I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.

I don't really think Bowen was a liability on offense, at least in the Spurs system.

Sure, if he had been asked to create his own shot, or shoot off the dribble, he would have been. In most systems, he would have been.

But the Spurs offense has revolved around a wing player being able to shoot the corner three for as long as I can remember (at least back to the sean elliott days). Because Bruce could do that, and do it well, he fit into the Spurs' offensive system just fine. If anything, the main problem with Bruce was he limited the Spurs offensively to a smaller set of plays that allowed him to fill the particular role he was good at.

[yavozerb]

Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.

Not sure why you are making such a big deal about this. Bowen was an offensive liability and that was a fact. If varner was talking about defense I am sure Bowen would be singled out as an asset at that time.

[ElNono]

Career 40% 3 point shooter was an offensive liability?

Aren't some of you singing praises of the exact same kind of production from ginger?

Make up your minds.

[Rummpd]

Bowen was a fabulous player but with Duncan averaging a given 20 a night they could afford him not taking a lot of shots. The Spurs may be plausibly a better team most of the game without him; but I do wish they still had Bruce around to see if he could give them 10 minutes of lock down defense a game when needed - I would bet he could still outplay Ime anyday as he kept himself in fine shape.

[Stand]

I'd rather that "offensive liability" be shooting the three in the playoffs than Bonner. I weep that Bonner is our Horry replacement.

[Dex]

Career 40% 3 point shooter was an offensive liability?

Aren't some of you singing praises of the exact same kind of production from ginger?

Make up your minds.

This.

Bruce Bowen wasn't an offensive force by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't remember how many of those timely corner-threes saved our asses. He didn't fill up the scoring column, but he sure knew how to hit them when they counted.

The guy led the league in 3PT% one year. How is that a liability?

And at least he could occasionally finish a drive around the basket.

[Cane]

Except for his corner 3 point shooting, Bruce Bowen can be seen as an offensive liability but the Spurs of old had enough options on offense anyway and his defense/intangibles made up for it.

While he led the league in 3pt%, he was one dimensional even in his strength since he was really only elite in the corners when it comes to the 3 point arc. Bowen also was hack-able much like Shaq since he wasn't good (actually terrible is more like it) at the line. If a defender denied his 3 point shot and forced Bruce to put the ball on the floor then the results afterwards usually wouldn't be pretty either.

[yavozerb]

Except for his corner 3 point shooting, Bruce Bowen can be seen as an offensive liability but the Spurs of old had enough options on offense anyway and his defense/intangibles made up for it.

While he led the league in 3pt%, he was one dimensional even in his strength since he was really only elite in the corners when it comes to the 3 point arc. Bowen also was hack-able much like Shaq since he wasn't good (actually terrible is more like it) at the line. If a defender denied his 3 point shot and forced Bruce to put the ball on the floor then the results afterwards usually wouldn't be pretty either.

Agreed...Was going to state the same facts

[yavozerb]

Career 40% 3 point shooter was an offensive liability?

Aren't some of you singing praises of the exact same kind of production from ginger?

Make up your minds.

fg%= 40%
ft%= 55%

Think you forgot these 2..:lol

[ElNono]

There's no question Bruce was one dimensional on the offensive end. That's not necessarily a liability when he more than made up for it on the other end.

These new 'high octane' offensive Spurs also have one dimensional offensive players in fairly prominent roles (at least viewed from currently assigned playing times).

The difference is that a combination of Bowen and a younger Duncan used to give you enough defense where it was enough with the scoring provided by the big 3 to win games. We don't have that luxury anymore, in part, because of Bowen retirement.

[yavozerb]

There's no question Bruce was one dimensional on the offensive end. That's not necessarily a liability when he more than made up for it on the other end.

These new 'high octane' offensive Spurs also have one dimensional offensive players in fairly prominent roles (at least viewed from currently assigned playing times).

The difference is that a combination of Bowen and a younger Duncan used to give you enough defense where it was enough with the scoring provided by the big 3 to win games. We don't have that luxury anymore, in part, because of Bowen retirement.

agreed. but this article is about the offense

[ElNono]

fg%= 40%
ft%= 55%

Think you forgot these 2..:lol

He was asked to be a 3 point shooter mainly offensively. He did that well.
His bread and butter was obviously defense. I don't remember Hack-a-Bowen being used on him where his FT% was actually a detriment to playing him.

[ElNono]

agreed. but this article is about the offense

The article's attempt to draw comparisons to yesteryears Spurs through a guy like Bowen fails miserably though.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's no question Bruce was one dimensional on the offensive end. That's not necessarily a liability when he more than made up for it on the other end.

Hence the reference to Bruce as an offensive liability.

[FromWayDowntown]

The article's attempt to draw comparisons to yesteryears Spurs through a guy like Bowen fails miserably though.

I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and competitive on the other.

[Mel_13]

I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and competitive on the other.

:tu

You really should post more frequently.

[ElNono]

Hence the reference to Bruce as an offensive liability.

I disagree. I think he was offensively one-dimensional. Which is different from being a liability. His 3 point shooting percentage was more than respectable, and the coach made sure that the bulk of his contributions on offense were kept on that realm (successfully so for the most part, I might add).


I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and competitive on the other.

And I agree with this. It's hard to talk about the Bowen-as-a-Spur era without talking defense.

But if you want to circumscribe it to the offense alone, even this high scoring Spurs have one dimensional players given a good chunk of playing time. I think the biggest difference from an offensive standpoint is that we're much more versatile than back then (except maybe in 2003). I think the quality of relatively new guys like Hill, and improved good players like RJ and Dice is really the difference maker.

[FromWayDowntown]

But if you want to circumscribe it to the offense alone, even this high scoring Spurs have one dimensional players given a good chunk of playing time. I think the biggest difference from an offensive standpoint is that we're much more versatile than back then (except maybe in 2003). I think the quality of relatively new guys like Hill, and improved good players like RJ and Dice is really the difference maker.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current Spurs are somehow more multi-dimensional than the guys who used to play here. I think the argument goes that the players who are here now are more offensively-inclined than their predecessors (in whatever way you choose to cast that -- more offensively versatile, more offensively consistent). They're one-dimensional, but their singular dimension is wholly on the offensive end of the floor.

And that's exactly the point -- in years gone by, Pop would have chosen a team full of guys who were more likely to defend ferociously (or to be more balanced from end-to-end) than a team comprised of a lot of guys whose sole dimension is offense. I personally think that Pop has realized that if you don't have elite defenders (like Bowen and a younger Duncan) you can't hope to be an elite defensive team and that if you aren't an elite defensive team, you'd better figure out a way to put the ball in the basket. And if you're going to do that, you'd better have some role players who are offensively inclined.

Again, I think Bruce Bowen is probably the perfect example of the difference between the 2002-2007 Spurs and the current Spurs. With a Bowen-type defender, the Spurs wouldn't be scoring 106 ppg; they'd be trying to lock people down still and more satisfied to grind things out offensively. Without that guy -- and they've sought him unsuccessfully for several years now -- the modus operandi has to be to score and hope to get enough stops to win games against good teams.

[ElNono]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current Spurs are somehow more multi-dimensional than the guys who used to play here. I think the argument goes that the players who are here now are more offensively-inclined than their predecessors (in whatever way you choose to cast that -- more offensively versatile, more offensively consistent). They're one-dimensional, but their singular dimension is wholly on the offensive end of the floor.

And that's exactly the point -- in years gone by, Pop would have chosen a team full of guys who were more likely to defend ferociously (or to be more balanced from end-to-end) than a team comprised of a lot of guys whose sole dimension is offense. I personally think that Pop has realized that if you don't have elite defenders (like Bowen and a younger Duncan) you can't hope to be an elite defensive team and that if you aren't an elite defensive team, you'd better figure out a way to put the ball in the basket. And if you're going to do that, you'd better have some role players who are offensively inclined.

Again, I think Bruce Bowen is probably the perfect example of the difference between the 2002-2007 Spurs and the current Spurs. With a Bowen-type defender, the Spurs wouldn't be scoring 106 ppg; they'd be trying to lock people down still and more satisfied to grind things out offensively. Without that guy -- and they've sought him unsuccessfully for several years now -- the modus operandi has to be to score and hope to get enough stops to win games against good teams.

No doubt. Completely agree. I don't think the article goes to explain it like this, and I think this is where it particularly falters.

The article reads: (The Spurs have been) "gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring".

I think the article fails to point out that the reason we've moved away from 'offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen' is that we've been unable to replace the 'defensive prowess' that players like Bowen brought to the table (and not for lack of trying to find a suitable replacement, as you stated).

It's not that the FO had much of a choice. We simply cannot keep up the defensive level, so we had to go out there looking for instant offense and more versatility.

In a nutshell, I share your view as to why we got here offensively. I think you really can't explain properly unless you include the dip on the defensive talent (and by extension defensive performance).

[ElNono]

I also disagree with the schtick that the Spurs were boring. Maybe for the casual observer they were. But I enjoy watching a good defensive dogfight as much as a offensive feast.

[ChumpDumper]

spurfans argue about funny things.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the article fails to point out that the reason we've moved away from 'offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen' is that we've been unable to replace the 'defensive prowess' that players like Bowen brought to the table (and not for lack of trying to find a suitable replacement, as you stated).

I don't think there's an intention to explain the why of it in Varner's note. It's simply an acknowledgment that the transition has happened with Bowen as an example of the change.

[barbacoataco]

Good thread. Bowen wasn't a liability in the Spurs system of the time. But it is true that RJ and Hill are much more of an offensive force. I love Bowen but times change and the Spurs are responding to the new rules of the NBA which make it hard to play defense.

[pad300]

:depressed:depressed:depressed:depressed



I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.

Actually, he wasn't. You could reliably park him in the corner and expect to get 38%+ on 3's if they didn't stick to him. Leaving him open all the time would kill you. An offensive liability is a guy you can reliably cheat off of. Examples: Reggie Evans (rebounder, but can't score), Keith Bogans (do I need to explain?), Nick Van Excel (when he was with the Spurs).

[tav1]

Sometimes careful qualifications are missed on a 300 word assignment. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[ElNono]

On a separate note, that touches tangentially on the unidimensional players and offensive liabilities, I've been pretty disappointed with Blair this season. He has picked it up a bit on the last couple of games, but all the talk about developing an outside game during the offseason really didn't amount to anything more than that, talk. He's also the guy that looks the least improved for 'year two' under the system, IMO.

[jjktkk]

Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.

Obvously, because of your avaitor pic. you got alittle defensive about Varner's comment about Bruce. Bruce just got old. It happens. True Spurs fans will always remember how important Bruce was for our champioship teams.

[jjktkk]

I also disagree with the schtick that the Spurs were boring. Maybe for the casual observer they were. But I enjoy watching a good defensive dogfight as much as a offensive feast.



+1! I absolutely loved watching the Spurs shut down a team defensively.

[TimmehC]

Sometimes careful qualifications are missed on a 300 word assignment. Don't sweat the small staff.

I think most people understood that you weren't dissing Bruce, just giving an example of the Spurs new direction.