Is Pop's system too structured?

[Dex]

Far be it my place to question the overall theory of a Hall of Fame coach, but I feel like this is a topic for discussion.

It's pretty common knowledge around here that the Spurs' sets, both offensively and defensively, are some of the most sophisticated out there. Even after an attempt to "simplify" things, they still have one of the thickest play books in the league.

Due to this, we've all become accustomed to the "first year" handicap. Players who are brought into the Spurs usually take at least a season before they start becoming comfortable with things. Jeff and Dice are the two most recent examples.

Furthermore, this is also exemplified when one of the pillars of the system goes down, like in these past three games without Tim. Suddenly, Pop doesn't just have to worry about replacing a player on the floor; he has to replace that role, or adjust the way the entire team plays.

It seems like when other teams lose a player, it doesn't create a complete upheaval in the system and the rotations. They just plug another player in and ride his talents (and if they are playing the Spurs, it is usually to great success).

The Spurs don't seem to have the same luxury; if one of their key guys goes down, it almost forces the whole team to play different. If one player isn't on the same page, the other four on floor suffer (particularly on defense). I know it's hard to replace special qualities like Parker's speed or Tim's defense, but I feel like the system is so dependent upon these advantages that the team is almost at a disadvantage without them.

I hate to question a system that basically worked for two championships (05 and 07), although I'd argue that the system worked a lot better with Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry than it ever will Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner.

So, is Pop's system too structured, or are the players just not properly executing it?

[Amuseddaysleeper]

There are "system" coaches and then there are "player" coaches. Someone else on the site discussed this (can't recall who off my head, but they made some good points).

You look at Thibs in Chicago and he's starting Keith Bogans for god's sake, so like Pop, even if the personnel doesn't seem right, these coaches will force feed certain types of players minutes if they feel they play within the system.

As for Pop's system, I think his defensive (and offensive) schemes are fine, he just has the wrong players. Bonner stretches the floor much better in theory than he actually does on the floor. Factored in with his poor D and rebounding, his offense would need to severely outweight his defense to justify keeping him on the floor (like Neal is able to do, though he plays good D as well), but that just isn't happening.

Couple that with the small ball obsession and the refusal to stay big (better luck next year Tiago! Or maybe the year after that!) and well I think it's a combination of the players AND the coach.

[SenorSpur]

There are "system" coaches and then there are "player" coaches. Someone else on the site discussed this (can't recall who off my head, but they made some good points).

You look at Thibs in Chicago and he's starting Keith Bogans for god's sake, so like Pop, even if the personnel doesn't seem right, these coaches will force feed certain types of players minutes if they feel they play within the system.

As for Pop's system, I think his defensive (and offensive) schemes are fine, he just has the wrong players. Bonner stretches the floor much better in theory than he actually does on the floor. Factored in with his poor D and rebounding, his offense would need to severely outweight his defense to justify keeping him on the floor (like Neal is able to do, though he plays good D as well), but that just isn't happening.

Couple that with the small ball obsession and the refusal to stay big (better luck next year Tiago! Or maybe the year after that!) and well I think it's a combination of the players AND the coach.

Great points - especially the part about perhaps Pop having the wrong players. One thing that has always struck me about Pop, at least in recent years, is that he doesn't seem to value the advantage of having size and length in his players. He constantly seeks to match size with quickness, thus his fancy for small-ball.

It bothers me that Tim, at his advanced age, is still relied on as this team's lone interior defender, rim-protector, and low post scorer. It bothers me that Tony and Manu are the only slashers/finishers on this team. Where is the help? It also bothers me that Pop stubbornly utilizes Matt Bonner, as though he's Robert Horry. Giving him crunch time minutes and defensive assignments, that result in him getting abused and leaving his teammates "hung out to dry".

On most nights, Pop and his coaching staff are usually the smartest guys in the room. However, his steadfast loyalty to a player, like Bonner, who routinely provides diminishing returns the more he plays, is either plain arrogance, denial or ignorance. Or a combination of all three.

Overall, I agree. The Spurs problems actually do seem to be dual-sided - inferior role players and the insistence by Pop on forcing them into matchups and situations, where they routinely fail.

Pop likes to say "the league and the rules have changed", which explains why he's changed his offensive style. What hasn't changed is how championships have been won - from the inside-out. Instead of trying to develop and field a roster that includes a few players with size, length, athleticism and skill versatility, Pop seems to prefer the one-dimensional, undersized, perimeter players. Players capable of playing this European-perimeter style of small-ball that the Spurs have evolved into. Perhaps that is what he feels he needs to make his system work. In the meantime, he's wasting the final years Tim Duncan's career in the process.

[DMC]

Pop learned under Larry Brown for some time, who uses a very structured coaching style, however he also had Don Nelson as a mentor and Don is much more loose. Pop has the ability and tendency to go either way, and his assistants are second to none (face it, Bud could lead a team and might in the near future). So I don't think the system is "too structured". I think it has key pieces that Pop gets as much as he can from, but that the other role players and system rely heavily upon to make the recipe work.

There are plenty of players in the NBA much better than 90% of the players on the Spurs team, but only a couple of teams that match up with them (at full health).

I think Pop is doing an outstanding job, especially considering the circumstances this year and last (and next!).

[elbamba]

Its as simple as this, Pop is a great coach. He is like Jerry Sloan, only he has had better players and did not coach much in the Jordan era. Pop gets the respect of his players and seems to find a way to put a winning formula together with good pieces and with bad pieces. (See 2010 Spurs team last year probably should not have made the playoffs, yet they advanced to the second round)

Where Pop hurts is in making in-game changes. I have heard people praise him for his ability to make in-game changes, and I have always thought it was stupid to do so. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Bonner/Dice or Bonner/Blair or Dice/Blair are not a good rebounding combination. Running these combinations have hurt the Spurs the last three games. It would be logical, and most of us can see this, that you play the guy who is 6'11" and has been playing well. Its not like Splitter has played poorly in the last three games, he has played well, especially on defense. He is a man, not a little boy, his confidence will be just fine.

Pop has also never been great at exploiting matchup weaknesses. In his defense, Duncan was an advantage against everyone for so many years. But coaches like Nelson and Phil Jackson have always been great about winning the winable matchups. Pop has never been great at this. He has had great players who have overshadowed this flaw in Pop's coaching game.

Again, Pop is a great coach, who will be going to the hall of fame. But like Jackson, he has had one of the greatest players of all time to hide the major flaws in his game. The last three years have brightened that light because Duncan is not the same player anymore.

[Bruno]

It's pretty common knowledge around here that the Spurs' sets, both offensively and defensively, are some of the most sophisticated out there. Even after an attempt to "simplify" things, they still have one of the thickest play books in the league.

Due to this, we've all become accustomed to the "first year" handicap. Players who are brought into the Spurs usually take at least a season before they start becoming comfortable with things. Jeff and Dice are the two most recent examples.


I think it's time to questioning this common knowledge.

For years there have been a widely spread talk about players needing a year to learn the system and being able to be significantly better in their second year. It looks great in theory but there are little facts to back up that.

A lot of players haven't had that improvement between their first and second year. Even worse, a lot of players have had their better year as a Spurs in their first year. On top of my head, Rasho, Nazr, Mason, Udoka. RJ is also symptomatic that this theory is more a myth than something else. RJ was great at the start and it was "he is now comfortable with the system". After this great start, RJ has been bad. At the end, his second year isn't really better than his first year.

Pop system isn't really that complicated. Offensively, it's a lot of pick and roll. Defensive rotations are a little harder to get but it certainly doesn't take a whole year to learn them when you are a confirmed pro basketball player.

[SenorSpur]

With the Spurs core of TP, Manu and Duncan getting older, they don't have time to wait for players to undergo a one-year intership before they can get production out of them. Trim down the playbook, and/or throw them into the fire as soon as possible - and live with the results.

[Muser]

Where is the help? It also bothers me that Pop stubbornly utilizes Matt Bonner, as though he's Robert Horry. Giving him crunch time minutes and defensive assignments, that result in him getting abused and leaving his teammates "hung out to dry".



This is the one thing I hate about Pop, we all know Horry was awesome for the Spurs. He could hit the 3 and was a pretty decent defender. Pop in his search for the next Horry is seeing something we aren't.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

And even before switching out Horry for Bonner, Pop thought he could get away with Bogans for Bowen :lol :lol :lol

[Chomag]

Everyone has made great points that I mostly agree with so I think I'm going to keep this a bit short. I think the Spurs system seems to lack flexibility. Taking the use of the 3 point shooting as an example. When the Spurs are having an off night from behind the arc they tend to keep shooting it untill they get hot and start going in versus trying to get something else going on offence

The biggest flaw that I tend to see though is Pop seems to always be adjusting to the competition and not the other way around. I would love for once to see Spurs force the competition to adjust to them, but that rarely if ever happens.

[Dex]

I think it's time to questioning this common knowledge.

For years there have been a widely spread talk about players needing a year to learn the system and being able to be significantly better in their second year. It looks great in theory but there are little facts to back up that.

A lot of players haven't had that improvement between their first and second year. Even worse, a lot of players have had their better year as a Spurs in their first year. On top of my head, Rasho, Nazr, Mason, Udoka. RJ is also symptomatic that this theory is more a myth than something else. RJ was great at the start and it was "he is now comfortable with the system". After this great start, RJ has been bad. At the end, his second year isn't really better than his first year.

Pop system isn't really that complicated. Offensively, it's a lot of pick and roll. Defensive rotations are a little harder to get but it certainly doesn't take a whole year to learn them when you are a confirmed pro basketball player.

A very interesting point you raise, Bruno. Perhaps this "common knowledge" has become more of an urban myth. You already listed a number of guys who declined in their second year. Even useful guys like Barry and Finley were better in their first seasons. Turkoglu never got a chance to show us his second. Is this a byproduct of the Spurs bringing in aging vets, or were they really struggling to fit the mold?

The only two guys off the top of my head that showed marked improvement in season two were Robert Horry and Antonio McDyess (not counting rookies). I completely agree that Jefferson looked like he had gotten over the hump in the start of the season, but has been a disappearing act since. Which is even more frustrating because he obviously knows what he should be doing, it's just not happening

This brings us back to the original point though. If we're ending up with all of these players who "can't fit" the system, is the problem with the players...or lack of flexibility in the system?

[admiralsnackbar]

Great points - especially the part about perhaps Pop having the wrong players. One thing that has always struck me about Pop, at least in recent years, is that he doesn't seem to value the advantage of having size and length in his players. He constantly seeks to match size with quickness, thus his fancy for small-ball.

It bothers me that Tim, at his advanced age, is still relied on as this team's lone interior defender, rim-protector, and low post scorer. It bothers me that Tony and Manu are the only slashers/finishers on this team. Where is the help? It also bothers me that Pop stubbornly utilizes Matt Bonner, as though he's Robert Horry. Giving him crunch time minutes and defensive assignments, that result in him getting abused and leaving his teammates "hung out to dry".

On most nights, Pop and his coaching staff are usually the smartest guys in the room. However, his steadfast loyalty to a player, like Bonner, who routinely provides diminishing returns the more he plays, is either plain arrogance, denial or ignorance. Or a combination of all three.

Overall, I agree. The Spurs problems actually do seem to be dual-sided - inferior role players and the insistence by Pop on forcing them into matchups and situations, where they routinely fail.

Pop likes to say "the league and the rules have changed", which explains why he's changed his offensive style. What hasn't changed is how championships have been won - from the inside-out. Instead of trying to develop and field a roster that includes a few players with size, length, athleticism and skill versatility, Pop seems to prefer the one-dimensional, undersized, perimeter players. Players capable of playing this European-perimeter style of small-ball that the Spurs have evolved into. Perhaps that is what he feels he needs to make his system work. In the meantime, he's wasting the final years Tim Duncan's career in the process.

A lot of good points here, but the last paragraph made me wonder whether Pop is really so enamored with fielding one-dimensional squads playing Euro/Small-ball hybrid style, or if instead he's just been working with what what was available at the time and the price.

After a decade+ of success, Pop and RC have had to make the best of iffy late 1st and 2nd rd picks, veterans on their way out of the league, journeymen fighting their way in, and other odds and ends. Complicating matters further has always been the presence of Peter Holt's glass salary cap.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the kinds of big, physical, well-rounded, defensive players you suggest Pop is reluctant to field are also the most expensive. If Pop didn't care about hard-nosed post D, he never would have drafted Tiago or Ian, or brought Dice, Horry, and KT in, or tried out Rattliff, or signed Ryan Richards on a prayer, or even demo'd Pops Mensah Bonsu. The common denominators among the bigs who stuck with the team was their intelligence and their low price.

Likewise, guards and 3s with good size, good D, slashing ability, and an outside shot aren't often available at the bargain prices we usually demand either. Let's not even list the revolving door of prospects we've entertained to fill Bruce's vacancy, or the back-up points.

So how do you compete if you're forced to run squads that are shorter (aka cheaper) and more one-dimensional (aka cheaper)? Play to their strengths. What are the most common (cheapest) strengths? Shooting seems much more common than having enough handles to be a good slasher, so I'll go with that.

One thing Pop has seemed fetishistic and inflexible on has been finding a budget stretch-4 -- which is possibly a testament to what a pain in Pop's ass Nowitzki been throughout the Duncan era. Horry, Ferry, Turkeyglue, Tolliver, Haislip, Bonner... I may be wrong, but I don't think we've had a team without this kind of player since our 2nd chip.

[intlspurshk]

Pop is good at setting the players into his system and make them perfect in executing the system. The advantage is that the team does not need to fill every position with star but just role (or cheap) players. However, when the system doesn't work (either being spoiled by an intelligent coach like Phil or the players he chosen aren't fit) then the system just breakdown. The team cracks and does not have ability to adjust & react which will result in landslide loss.

[rmt]

This system stuff is BS. Nazr came in March and helped win a championship. I don't care if Bonner knows the system, spreads the floor, is king of +/-, is a veteran, etc. Can you imagine Bonner going up against Ben/Rasheed Wallaces? Well, that's what we're going to see if Spurs play MEM or LAL.

Rim protection, rebounds and toughness (interior defense) wins championships - gimme Nazr or equivalent (meaning Splitter) any day. They never ran anything for Nazr and this team doesn't need offense (and it's not like Splitter can't run pick-n-roll). It desperately needs defense.

Also, Dice is going to get worn down trying to hold on HCA when he needs to be resting up for the playoffs. I can't believe that after Splitter's recent showing they have him sitting on the bench in the 4th quarter. Better prepare ourselves for worse because they're going to trust him even less in the playoffs - it'll be another bunch of DNP-CDs while Spurs are getting murdered in the paint.

[admiralsnackbar]

Pop is good at setting the players into his system and make them perfect in executing the system. The advantage is that the team does not need to fill every position with star but just role (or cheap) players. However, when the system doesn't work (either being spoiled by an intelligent coach like Phil or the players he chosen aren't fit) then the system just breakdown. The team cracks and does not have ability to adjust & react which will result in landslide loss.

Short and sweet. And solid.

[rmt]

A lot of good points here, but the last paragraph made me wonder whether Pop is really so enamored with fielding one-dimensional squads playing Euro/Small-ball hybrid style, or if instead he's just been working with what what was available at the time and the price.

After a decade+ of success, Pop and RC have had to make the best of iffy late 1st and 2nd rd picks, veterans on their way out of the league, journeymen fighting their way in, and other odds and ends. Complicating matters further has always been the presence of Peter Holt's glass salary cap.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the kinds of big, physical, well-rounded, defensive players you suggest Pop is reluctant to field are also the most expensive. If Pop didn't care about hard-nosed post D, he never would have drafted Tiago or Ian, or brought Dice, Horry, and KT in, or tried out Rattliff, or signed Ryan Richards on a prayer, or even demo'd Pops Mensah Bonsu. The common denominators among the bigs who stuck with the team was their intelligence and their low price.

Likewise, guards and 3s with good size, good D, slashing ability, and an outside shot aren't often available at the bargain prices we usually demand either. Let's not even list the revolving door of prospects we've entertained to fill Bruce's vacancy, or the back-up points.

So how do you compete if you're forced to run squads that are shorter (aka cheaper) and more one-dimensional (aka cheaper)? Play to their strengths. What are the most common (cheapest) strengths? Shooting seems much more common than having enough handles to be a good slasher, so I'll go with that.

One thing Pop has seemed fetishistic and inflexible on has been finding a budget stretch-4 -- which is possibly a testament to what a pain in Pop's ass Nowitzki been throughout the Duncan era. Horry, Ferry, Turkeyglue, Tolliver, Haislip, Bonner... I may be wrong, but I don't think we've had a team without this kind of player since our 2nd chip.

Well, they're paying Splitter his 3 mil/year - why not use him? Pop just does not value height/toughness as evidenced by trading away Ratliff who was on a vet. min salary last year. You can get away with one-dimensional (shooting) players on the perimeter, but to win championships you must have interior defense to erase the mistakes if the opponent gets by.

I rue the day that Pop became enamored of this small ball. It's like they won the championship in 07, looked around and thought they could get away with jump shooting bigs because DAL and PHX were their biggest competitors. They make their biggest mistake trading away Scola, win with Oberto, expecting Splitter to come over. Gasol and Boston happen, Splitter doesn't come over and their long-term plans go awry. Injuries happen, they trade for the one-dimensional, can't create his own shot disaster that's RJ.

I understand that things happen that they can't control. But the trade of Scola and benching Splitter are major, reprehensible mistakes. Duncan has masked the problems of Blair/Bonner but now that he's injured, the lack of interior defense is magnified. I'd have hope for the playoffs if the coaching staff recognized the problem, but they aren't. The benching of Splitter in the 4th and over-playing of Blair/Bonner means they don't intend to use Splitter in the POs. Small ball is bad, but 4 shooters surrounding one of Bonner or Blair is ridiculous. The solution to the interior defense is rotting on the bench - for God's sake - play him (30-35 mins).

[wunderkindepiphany]

No.

[Bruno]

This brings us back to the original point though. If we're ending up with all of these players who "can't fit" the system, is the problem with the players...or lack of flexibility in the system?

I think there are a true problem with how RJ fit with the system. For the other players, it has nothing to do with a bad fit or a system too structured.

For example, Bonner is a good fit with the system. His problem is that he isn't a very good player. You can put him in whatever system imaginable, he will still be the same limited player who is at best an average defender and rebounder.

Spurs have lost 3 in a row but it was on the road against good team. IMO, the main reason of these loses is the limitation of Spurs roster. They certainly haven't the best roster in the league. Spurs biggest roster limitation is on the defensive end and loosing Duncan, their best defender, is a huge blow. And these limitations are made worse by some coaching choice like not enough Splitter and no Anderson.

[Bruno]

There are "system" coaches and then there are "player" coaches. Someone else on the site discussed this (can't recall who off my head, but they made some good points).


If there were some good points, it should have been me.

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, they're paying Splitter his 3 mil/year - why not use him? Pop just does not value height/toughness as evidenced by trading away Ratliff who was on a vet. min salary last year. You can get away with one-dimensional (shooting) players on the perimeter, but to win championships you must have interior defense to erase the mistakes if the opponent gets by.

I rue the day that Pop became enamored of this small ball. It's like they won the championship in 07, looked around and thought they could get away with jump shooting bigs because DAL and PHX were their biggest competitors. They make their biggest mistake trading away Scola, win with Oberto, expecting Splitter to come over. Gasol and Boston happen, Splitter doesn't come over and their long-term plans go awry. Injuries happen, they trade for the one-dimensional, can't create his own shot disaster that's RJ.

I understand that things happen that they can't control. But the trade of Scola and benching Splitter are major, reprehensible mistakes. Duncan has masked the problems of Blair/Bonner but now that he's injured, the lack of interior defense is magnified. I'd have hope for the playoffs if the coaching staff recognized the problem, but they aren't. The benching of Splitter in the 4th and over-playing of Blair/Bonner means they don't intend to use Splitter in the POs. Small ball is bad, but 4 shooters surrounding one of Bonner or Blair is ridiculous. The solution to the interior defense is rotting on the bench - for God's sake - play him (30-35 mins).

Splitter makes something like 1.70M/yr, but whatever -- your points are well-taken.

When it comes to who Pop chooses to entomb on the bench, I got nothing by way of insight.

[Hooks]

"Always sprayin tecs, because I be stayin vexed
Some nigga named Dex, was in the projects layin threats
I jumped out the lincoln, left him stinkin
Put his brains in the street
Now you can see what he was just thinkin"

[DMC]

Everyone has made great points that I mostly agree with so I think I'm going to keep this a bit short. I think the Spurs system seems to lack flexibility. Taking the use of the 3 point shooting as an example. When the Spurs are having an off night from behind the arc they tend to keep shooting it untill they get hot and start going in versus trying to get something else going on offence

The biggest flaw that I tend to see though is Pop seems to always be adjusting to the competition and not the other way around. I would love for once to see Spurs force the competition to adjust to them, but that rarely if ever happens.

What you say is valid. There's a reason they keep shooting the 3 though: they don't have the same options they had a few years ago. Duncan is seeing less minutes, and isn't the same presence in the paint he once was when it's out there. We don't have a legitimate center. We have McDyess as the closest thing outside of the PF/Center Duncan. Even McDyess isn't a center though, being a hybrid forward/center. Blair tries to be center and does better than probably anyone else with his stature and experience, but he's also not a center. Tiago is really the only potential center, and he's a huge liability from the stripe, and is getting his feet wet in the NBA still. So we are left to either drive the paint ala TP or Manu and risk injury, turnover and foul trouble, or we go with what got us to the dance in the first place which is the improved offense from outside.

You cannot abandon your game just because your shots aren't falling. The Spurs aren't suddenly going to become a defensive powerhouse just because they have a 20 second timeout.

[SenorSpur]

What you say is valid. There's a reason they keep shooting the 3 though: they don't have the same options they had a few years ago. Duncan is seeing less minutes, and isn't the same presence in the paint he once was when it's out there. We don't have a legitimate center. We have McDyess as the closest thing outside of the PF/Center Duncan. Even McDyess isn't a center though, being a hybrid forward/center. Blair tries to be center and does better than probably anyone else with his stature and experience, but he's also not a center. Tiago is really the only potential center, and he's a huge liability from the stripe, and is getting his feet wet in the NBA still. So we are left to either drive the paint ala TP or Manu and risk injury, turnover and foul trouble, or we go with what got us to the dance in the first place which is the improved offense from outside.

You cannot abandon your game just because your shots aren't falling. The Spurs aren't suddenly going to become a defensive powerhouse just because they have a 20 second timeout.

That's true, but heavy reliance on the 3-ball IS an issue. When that shot isn't falling, and you're on the road, it's better to work inside for easier shots. Have players simply forgotten the in-between game? There is no harm in putting the ball on the floor and settling for an 18 ft shot or driving it to the cup. Those shots result in a better chance of getting free points at the charity stripe. The fact that the Spurs offense is based primarily on the 3-ball is very, very disconcerting.

[DMC]

I think there are a true problem with how RJ fit with the system. For the other players, it has nothing to do with a bad fit or a system too structured.

For example, Bonner is a good fit with the system. His problem is that he isn't a very good player. You can put him in whatever system imaginable, he will still be the same limited player who is at best an average defender and rebounder.

Spurs have lost 3 in a row but it was on the road against good team. IMO, the main reason of these loses is the limitation of Spurs roster. They certainly haven't the best roster in the league. Spurs biggest roster limitation is on the defensive end and loosing Duncan, their best defender, is a huge blow. And these limitations are made worse by some coaching choice like not enough Splitter and no Anderson.

Bonner is not even an average defender, at best. He's a traffic cone, at best. However, even a traffic cone holds it's ground.

[TD 21]

I think it's time to questioning this common knowledge.

For years there have been a widely spread talk about players needing a year to learn the system and being able to be significantly better in their second year. It looks great in theory but there are little facts to back up that.

A lot of players haven't had that improvement between their first and second year. Even worse, a lot of players have had their better year as a Spurs in their first year. On top of my head, Rasho, Nazr, Mason, Udoka. RJ is also symptomatic that this theory is more a myth than something else. RJ was great at the start and it was "he is now comfortable with the system". After this great start, RJ has been bad. At the end, his second year isn't really better than his first year.

Pop system isn't really that complicated. Offensively, it's a lot of pick and roll. Defensive rotations are a little harder to get but it certainly doesn't take a whole year to learn them when you are a confirmed pro basketball player.

It's not about learning it. Conceptually, most players likely pick it up relatively quickly. It's about having it become second nature to the point where it's instinctive. Where it's not about thinking first, but rather reacting.

For instance, you look at how the Spurs defend against the corner three. Rather than making the simple rotation when a perimeter player get's beat middle, which is to have the man in the corner step in, they bring someone from the weak side to stop penetration, so as to avoid giving up a wide open corner three. Conceptually, it sounds simple. But at the speed the game is played at, if you hesitate or have to think about what to do for a split second, it's too late.

[DMC]

That's true, but heavy reliance on the 3-ball IS an issue. When that shot isn't falling, and you're on the road, it's better to work inside for easier shots. Have players simply forgotten the in-between game? There is no harm in putting the ball on the floor and settling for an 18 ft shot or driving it to the cup. Those shots result in a better chance of getting free points at the charity stripe. The fact that the Spurs offense is based primarily on the 3-ball is very, very disconcerting.

Every team relies on their outside shooting. I think there's a stigma attached to a good 3pt shooting team because of the Suns. The fact is that the Suns would probably have a ring if the Spurs don't beat them that year they got penalized for the Horry hip check on Nash, and the Suns had NO defense.

Being a great 3pt shooting team isn't a weakness. Allowing the other team to score 110pts is a weakness. It's all at the defensive end. We usually score enough points to win if we played any defense at all.

[TD 21]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

[DMC]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

I didn't say the Spurs would have lost if not for the hipcheck. I said if the Suns would have won that year... I was using that hip check as a reference. Read again.

[SenorSpur]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

That's the whole point right there - and an excellent one. A point that has not been discussed very much. If the coach is serious about improving the team defense, then acquiring better defensive players is the way to go.

You can't expect to maintain there normal level with of defensive excellence when you're bringing in inferior defensive players. With the absence of Bowen and the decline of Duncan's skills, and no other players of note to help mitigate their contributions on that end, it's no coincidence that the Spurs overall defensive level has declined.

[Dex]

That's the whole point right there - and an excellent one. A point that has not been discussed very much. If the coach is serious about improving the team defense, then acquiring better defensive players is the way to go.

You can't expect to maintain there normal level with of defensive excellence when you're bringing in inferior defensive players. With the absence of Bowen and the decline of Duncan's skills, and no other players of note to help mitigate their contributions on that end, it's no coincidence that the Spurs overall defensive level has declined.

I think this is where I've pretty much settled on the topic. Pop has always had the blueprint to make it work; he just doesn't have the parts to build it anymore.

For a guy with as much influence as he has on the organization, he has to hold part of the blame for that. Some of it may have come down to circumstance (Scola Thread!), but other decisions have been downright questionable (small ball, riding Finley into the sunset, overplaying Bonner, underplaying Splitter/Ratliff/Mahinmi). Also as noted, the focus in drafting and free agency no longer seems to be in length and defense; it's in shooting and quickness.

How is defense not expected to suffer? You can't teach cats to be dogs.

Pop seems to be trying to adapt to the "changing of the game", but he is losing his roots in doing so.

[Rummpd]

Lets go Spurs!

[Rummpd]

hey this is probably part of the future Spurs LOL if we only had a decent back up PG as Hill more like a shooting guard.

[ChuckD]

Far be it my place to question the overall theory of a Hall of Fame coach, but I feel like this is a topic for discussion.

It's pretty common knowledge around here that the Spurs' sets, both offensively and defensively, are some of the most sophisticated out there. Even after an attempt to "simplify" things, they still have one of the thickest play books in the league.

Due to this, we've all become accustomed to the "first year" handicap. Players who are brought into the Spurs usually take at least a season before they start becoming comfortable with things. Jeff and Dice are the two most recent examples.

Furthermore, this is also exemplified when one of the pillars of the system goes down, like in these past three games without Tim. Suddenly, Pop doesn't just have to worry about replacing a player on the floor; he has to replace that role, or adjust the way the entire team plays.

It seems like when other teams lose a player, it doesn't create a complete upheaval in the system and the rotations. They just plug another player in and ride his talents (and if they are playing the Spurs, it is usually to great success).

The Spurs don't seem to have the same luxury; if one of their key guys goes down, it almost forces the whole team to play different. If one player isn't on the same page, the other four on floor suffer (particularly on defense). I know it's hard to replace special qualities like Parker's speed or Tim's defense, but I feel like the system is so dependent upon these advantages that the team is almost at a disadvantage without them.

I hate to question a system that basically worked for two championships (05 and 07), although I'd argue that the system worked a lot better with Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry than it ever will Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner.

So, is Pop's system too structured, or are the players just not properly executing it?

Top to bottom, we can't compete talent-wise with the better teams in the league with our market/financial parameters. Without the system, we're a bottom half of the draw playoff team. It's probably good for a solid 7-8 wins a season.

[Dex]

Spurs are rolling against Portland, up 8. Instead of sticking with the hot hands, Pop goes back to his starters (deciding it's a swell time for Splitter to see the fourth quarter and, of course, the Floorspreader) and the Spurs go cold for 7 minutes in the 4th and give up 13 straight.

I understand sticking with your starters when they are Tim, Tony, and Manu...but when we're playing the YMCA roster and you've finally caught some fire?

Just sayin'. :stirpot:

[DMC]

YMCA roster? LOL