Aldridge: Neal told to expect some minutes at PG

[TD 21]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/07/18/morning-tip/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

Before he left San Antonio for the summer, Gregg Popovich and R.C. Buford told him he had to keep working on his game and not be satisfied. Now that George Hill has been traded to Indiana, Neal says he was told to expect some minutes next season backing up Tony Parker at point guard.


Not exactly shocking news. But at least it gives us some potential insight into the front offices' plan. Maybe they won't go after an established backup, such as Watson. Maybe they'll turn to a less proven option, someone to just provide depth, rather than play regularly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: that would be foolish. It sounds great in theory, because it would allow their best talent to play and it would make them significantly bigger on the perimeter. But there's two obvious problems with this . . .

1) Neal would have to consistently defend PG's, which is a recipe for disaster.

2) Even in the event he does an adequate job with that 1, what happens when Parker inevitably succumb to injury? Have Neal play 35 mpg at PG? Run Ginobili into the ground? They need an established PG, who's reliable enough to step in and play major minutes when Parker get's injured.

But if they sign an established PG to be in the rotation, then they'll be no room for one of Leonard or Anderson. What they need to do is alleviate the roster imbalance by getting rid of Jefferson and acquiring a starting PF (for financial reasons, the latter probably only happens if the former does). Which brings me to this . . .

1) McDyess/Blair for A. Johnson, Jefferson for Petro, Petro for Alabi

2) Jefferson/Blair for A. Johnson/Kleiza

Both are good trades for the Raptors. In 1, they save a lot of money, while getting back an equal player. In 2, they don't save money, but they improve at SF, improve their league worst three-point shooting and get a glass eater to replace Evans.

While 1 is obviously ideal for the Spurs, it probably only happens if the Nets strike out on their primary SF targets. Whatever the new cap is, the Nets will have tons of cap space, an owner willing to spend and they'll be desperate to do something of significance to convince Williams to stay. Considering their lack of trade assets, Jefferson may end up being as good as they can do. He would give them a third scorer and by trading Petro, they'd essentially get him for $6 million next season and $7.5 million the following season.

Even if the Raptors -- who don't have a single established C on the roster and will inevitably strike out on Chandler/Dalembert -- balk at Petro for Alabi, it's still worth it for the Spurs.

[ElNono]

Bad news... That means Cory will be glued to the bench or playing for the Toros. And we're going to try to squeeze another SG as a PG. I just wish we would get a serviceable vet PG to back up Tony, and stop with these experiments that never worked for us.

[ivanfromwestwood]

I like it. Neal runs the PnR good enough. He can set people up and has a good game going to the basket.

[elemento]

Well,

Of course Neal is not ideal to defend PGs, but he will defend backup PGs mostly. And it's not like Neal will play a lot of minutes as a backup PG. I expect 10 to 15 min at most.
When Parker got injured, Hill did fine as a backup because Manu was the playing the point most of the time. There wasn't a disaster.
If Parker happens to be injured again, the same thing will happen.
And Neal receiving PG minutes won't stop the Spurs to sign a backup PG. Even with Hill, Parker, Manu and Neal, we signed Quinn. I just hope that this time we sign a better cheap backup PG, like Watson as you said.
OKC has 5 PGs. I don't think they will keep Royal Ivey. He would be my favorite to be our cheap backup PG.

I'm happy because it will give Anderson more minutes.

[ElNono]

I like it. Neal runs the PnR good enough. He can set people up and has a good game going to the basket.

You can run the PnR as a SG. Manu made a living out of that. That's not really the problem. The problem is setting up the offense, calling and executing plays, and when the play you called didn't work, making lemonade. Basically, a lot of the things Hill was pretty weak at too.

I prefer Manu to play SG. It's his natural position, where he feels more comfortable with, and if he's going to have to give us reduced minutes (at this point mandatory, IMO), I rather he give us his best where he's better at.

[JsnSA]

It would be worth giving a try but I really hope they do not force it if its clear its not working.

This reminds me too much of what happened to Roger Mason. I would hate to see Neal get broken the way Roger did. Mason was hot shit until he was forced to play pg too much and then he became a shell of his former self practically over night.

[Tyrone Jenkins]

You can run the PnR as a SG. Manu made a living out of that. That's not really the problem. The problem is setting up the offense, calling and executing plays, and when the play you called didn't work, making lemonade. Basically, a lot of the things Hill was pretty weak at too.

I prefer Manu to play SG. It's his natural position, where he feels more comfortable with, and if he's going to have to give us reduced minutes (at this point mandatory, IMO), I rather he give us his best where he's better at.

Agree completely.

Everyone seems to think being a PG is simply ball-handling and calling plays. That's about 20% of being a good offensive PG. The other 80% is about DECISION MAKING. There are several good PGs that make poor decisions but only a few that make very good ones. Nash is a good example of an excellent decision maker - he even was voted as the league MVP twice and he plays no defense; his offense was that stellar.

TP is one of the best PGs the Spurs have had because of how he manages the game, the choices he makes between driving, passing or hitting the 18ft jumper and deciphering matchups and positioning his teammates in the best manner to capitalize.

Neal can't do that - not because he doesn't want to, but because he has little experience doing so (nothing against him personally). The Spurs would be better off w/ Cory Joseph backing up TP - he'll make some mistakes/turnovers but will learn by fire (the same way TP did). The Spurs and Cory will be the better for it 3 years from now.

[ulosturedge]

It would be worth giving a try but I really hope they do not force it if its clear its not working.

This reminds me too much of what happened to Roger Mason. I would hate to see Neal get broken the way Roger did. Mason was hot shit until he was forced to play pg too much and then he became a shell of his former self practically over night.

I think they took that into account, but I think Neal is head strong. Something tells me regardless of him playing the point or not he is going to continue to knock down shots. From everything i've seen so far Neal is pretty fearless. He's no where near the same makeup of a Roger Mason.


And I don't agree with TD21 saying it will be a disaster watching him guard PG's. At least he will be guarding players more his height. He doesn't play enough minutes to get into foul trouble, and only a portion of those minutes would be at point guard

[Danny.Zhu]

Rmj ii

[Amuseddaysleeper]

It's starting to look more and more like the team is going to need a new coach. Pop just refuses to learn from his mistakes. Every single person on this forum could see the lack of Splitter hurting this team months before it blew up in Pop's face.

Trying to force players to play out of position just won't work. Neal is going to have a down year as RMJ II when he's forced to play PG and out of his comfort zone.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TD 21]

Well,

Of course Neal is not ideal to defend PGs, but he will defend backup PGs mostly. And it's not like Neal will play a lot of minutes as a backup PG. I expect 10 to 15 min at most.
When Parker got injured, Hill did fine as a backup because Manu was the playing the point most of the time. There wasn't a disaster.
If Parker happens to be injured again, the same thing will happen.
And Neal receiving PG minutes won't stop the Spurs to sign a backup PG. Even with Hill, Parker, Manu and Neal, we signed Quinn. I just hope that this time we sign a better cheap backup PG, like Watson as you said.
OKC has 5 PGs. I don't think they will keep Royal Ivey. He would be my favorite to be our cheap backup PG.

I'm happy because it will give Anderson more minutes.

If they go with an established PG, I think it's 50/50 between Watson/Ivey. They could trade Green for him (it works, because the Thunder are way under the cap and other than re-signing Cook and maybe bringing in a minimum forward, they're set) or wait and see if he's waived. As you alluded to, there's clearly no room for him on the Thunder.

The Spurs may actually prefer Ivey to Watson, because he's been a non rotation player for much of his career, so he'd probably be more accepting of his role, if in fact they fail to move Jefferson and utilize Neal as the backup PG. And unlike Watson, he can defend SG's.

Neal playing PG may give Anderson more minutes, but what about Leonard? Ten man rotations are difficult for myriad reasons.

[sananspursfan21]

is delonte west serviceable? is he even a free agent?

[D-rob fan]

Hopefully Neal doesn't follow Roger Mason Jr.'s lead after he started taking on point guard duties.

[ElNono]

It isn't just RMJ... Hill couldn't turn into a serviceable PG and run an offense in 3 seasons either. This is the NBA. There's top talent out there. IMO, it's a problem to keep rolling experiments out there when the best players in your roster have a very short term expiration date.

[DesignatedT]

This doesn't necessarily mean that the Spurs won't sign another PG. I'm sure Neal will get his chance at the position but I could see the Spurs bringing in a vet for the minimum as insurance and spot minutes. Definitely won't see them spending any of the MLE to get another guard though.

Cory Joseph can't play next season IMO. He will be with Austin the whole year regardless of what our PG situation is.

[TDMVPDPOY]

serious?


SERIOUS?

serious...

fck this RMJ v.20 failure experimental shit again

[ElNono]

This doesn't necessarily mean that the Spurs won't sign another PG. I'm sure Neal will get his chance at the position but I could see the Spurs bringing in a vet for the minimum as insurance and spot minutes.

While I wouldn't discard that outright, I've been thinking they would do the same thing the last couple of seasons, and they have not (and I don't really consider Quinn a vet).
I think they feel that they can live with Manu playing backup PG if the need arises, but I personally think it's a poor decision (not that Manu couldn't, but I think we need Manu's limited legs to give us his best at SG)

[DesignatedT]

I wouldn't read to much into this. The Spurs aren't even allowed to talk to their players right now because of the lockout, so I'm sure they talked to each guy individually and told him some things to work on (since they are locked out of the gym).

With the uncertainty of the new CBA and the lack of PG depth on the roster, I'm sure Gary was told to work on some of his PG skills (things he should probably work on either way).

[Ditty]

Neal is a better ball handler, and can actually drive with the ball in his hands, and has a nice floater not like RM. Yeah I don't want to see Neal as an point guard, and do hope we get someone by trade or free agency. I think the SG will be cramped with Anderson starting,and Manu coming off the bench.

[MaNu4Tres]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

[TimmehC]

Yeah, I think people are reading too much into this. "Some" does not mean all the backup minutes behind Tony. It seems like they think CJ is legit, so he'll likely be getting those minutes after he gets used to the system. Besides, Manu is usually playing with the backup PG anyway, so he assumes most of the responsibility for the offense.

[024]

RIP Neal.

[DrSteffo]

Having only one true PG on the team would be very stupid. I hope Joseph makes the team and gets spot minutes at PG. Seems he is a good defender and we desperately need that. If Joseph isn't ready then we absolutely need a cheap vet PG. Neal/Manu could be ok for a few minutes but would be exploitable by quicker guards and if one of Parker or Manu goes down with an injury we would be a bad, unbalanced team.

[MaNu4Tres]

:lol

I love how people think Pop made Mason suck. When in reality, Mason was just a really bad limited player, who had an initial hot streak when teams were unaware of his one strength (one dribble pull up off the pick and roll). Once teams took that out of Mason's game, Mason went down shitter because he couldn't do anything else. He was a lost cause on the defensive end as well ( both mentally and physically), something Neal is not ( Neal is actually underrated in this regard).

They both play(ed) the same position and both could shoot, but Mason of 09' and Neal of 11' are totally different players. Watch some games.

I'm sure Mike D'Antoni made Mason suck this past year too. How dare he make him play the SF at times. :lol

[jesterbobman]

This was kind of discussed aswell in the Cory Joseph think tank thread. Basically, If Neal-Manu is the backcourt off the bench, there's enough playmaking that Neal can kindof play as a combo guard, and we don't have such a squeeze for minutes. He'll be masquerading as a PG, but it's probably fine with Manu, though maybe not so much with Neal-Anderson. It's probably worth it in terms of maximising team effectiveness(Leonard playing instead of Quinn)

[DesignatedT]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

You make a pretty compelling argument.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

That was a nice post :tu

[mountainballer]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

very good post. and you point towards the right direction: it's not just about the position (and the positions back up) it's about rotations. Hill wasn't the "back up" of Parker in the first place either. he was a major part of a back court rotation of Tony, Manu, Hill and Neal and sometimes asked to play the point. Neal will just slide into Hill's role and outside Hill's better ability to defend quick players, there is no reason to think Neal can't do whatever Hill was asked to do. in fact he might do significantly better, just because he seems to be smarter. and we did not yet see much of what Neal is able to do with the ball in his hands. in Treviso he was quite good as a creator.
abut defense: agree that Neal is underrated. the fact that a player isn't the quickest in the world doesn't automatically make him a liability, as long as he plays with tenacity and smarts. (see Derek Fisher)

so, when the Spurs play a back court rotation of Tony-Manu-Neal-Anderson (and Anderson developed his game, I'm sure he did), they have a bigger and better rotation than last year. slower, but this should be compensated by other qualities. the fact that Anderson is strong enough to occasionally defend the SF makes this rotation even more versatile.
what we must not oversee either are the financial aspects. no additional investments for the back court raises the chance to somehow get a quality PF, the most relevant need for the roster.

[Bruno]

It's not because you keep repeating something wrong that it will make it right.

Mason didn't suck because Pop played him at PG.

Mason sucked because:
1) He was injured. He tore a ligament in his right hand against Detroit in February 2010. Before that injury he shot 65/172 (37.7%) from 3pt land, after it, 23/90 (25.5%). This injury was serious enough to need a surgery during the off-season.
2) He was a mal-content. In case you forgot, he asked for a trade at the February 2010 deadline.
3) He isn't a very good player. A proof of that is how he was bad with Knicks this year.

But yeah, keep spreading the "Pop broke RMJ" BS.

[Bruno]

I think Neal at backup PG is worth a try providing if Manu is on the court with him. A Neal/Ginobili could work but I highly doubt a Neal/Anderson will. Defensively, I'm not really worried: Neal will be matched up against backup PG and I'm not sold that his lack of quickness against PG will hurt him more than his lack of size against SG. Spurs telling him before the lockout that he would play some minutes at PG will allow him to work on that during the summer.

Spurs will add a vet PG for insurance purpose with a min salary. All their resources should be focused on getting forward(s) via trade or FA.

[joshdaboss]

It's like Popobitch purposely tries to sabotage players. Udrih, Mason, Blair and now Neal.

[benefactor]

For once...Manu4Tres and I agree. Mark your calendar folks.

[benefactor]

Bruno also makes a very good point on the size issue. Neal was always going to be a bit of a mismatch on the defensive end when playing SG. From what I saw last year he actually plays with a lot of effort and is not near the liability some people are making him out to be. I'd much rather that effort be used guarding smaller players instead of bigger players...as the Spurs lack of size as been one of the biggest problems this team as faced over the past several seasons.

[TJastal]

abut defense: agree that Neal is underrated. the fact that a player isn't the quickest in the world doesn't automatically make him a liability, as long as he plays with tenacity and smarts. (see Derek Fisher)

Fisher also gets by thanks to playing for the lakers and getting all kinds of allowances from officials he would never get playing on other teams. And he still gets torched on a regular basis. Neal not only won't get any favors from the refs he's going to get torched on a regular basis by a slew of point guards.


so, when the Spurs play a back court rotation of Tony-Manu-Neal-Anderson (and Anderson developed his game, I'm sure he did), they have a bigger and better rotation than last year. slower, but this should be compensated by other qualities. the fact that Anderson is strong enough to occasionally defend the SF makes this rotation even more versatile.
what we must not oversee either are the financial aspects. no additional investments for the back court raises the chance to somehow get a quality PF, the most relevant need for the roster.

Neal is mainly a spot up shooter who can occassionally take a dribble or two and throw up a floater. Asking him to more would be hazardous to his game
just as it was with RMJ.

[TJastal]

Bruno also makes a very good point on the size issue. Neal was always going to be a bit of a mismatch on the defensive end when playing SG. From what I saw last year he actually plays with a lot of effort and is not near the liability some people are making him out to be. I'd much rather that effort be used guarding smaller players instead of bigger players...as the Spurs lack of size as been one of the biggest problems this team as faced over the past several seasons.

Matching up to bigger, physical backcourts like the grizzlies wasn't really the crux of the problem, the fact that the spurs have been bereft of any defensive shotblocking presence in the middle was the main problem IMO. Those cutters like Tony Allen who chewed up Hill continously on backdoor cuts had clear paths straight to the basket time and time again were met with little resistance at the rim (or none usually).

[hsxvvd]

is delonte west serviceable? is he even a free agent?

He serviced leBron's mother

[mountainballer]

considering Joseph takes a roster spot and that they likely don't want to cut Butler or Green yet, they might start the season (whenever this happens) without this vet. PG and just see how it works. a vet PG in the Quinn mold can be hired during the season, if necessary. (a better would be to expensive anyhow).
however, we are talking a minor issue here. I agree, the success of the next season depends on acquiring a quality PF in the first place, in the 2nd and in the 3rd.

[benefactor]

TJ...still strong with the butthurt over the loss of Hill.

Move on. Hill has.

[TDMVPDPOY]

spurs still playin small ball? there goes another season down in the toilets....

[lefty]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck :pctoss


RMJ 2.0

[hater]

this is fucking retarded. Neal is a pure clutch shooting guard. What a fucking waste :pctoss

[Redshadows]

Well, I guess if the Spurs started with TP and Anderson at backup, the starting SF wouldn't be Leonard, for Pop won't start two so young and inexperienced players together.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not sold that his lack of quickness against PG will hurt him more than his lack of size against SG. Spurs telling him before the lockout that he would play some minutes at PG will allow him to work on that during the summer.

Except Neal's difficulties on defense were not based on his size. Remember all those fouls?

Make a quick cut to the basket and Neal was getting grabby. Get a good pick and Neal gets grabby. He wasn't playing post defense and guys were not just shooting over the top of him.

You can drive on Neal.

That lack of quickness was apparent with bench shooting guards. Point guards are going to be quicker.

Then you consider our bench bigs of Bonner and Blair then you had better hope that Leonard is absolute dynamite.

[yavozerb]

Neal will have some ups and downs at the pg position, but I really do not expect a drop off from Hill. Offensively, there is no drop off and actually you could make an arguement that the offense is improved with Neal running the point with his shooting and scoring ability. Neal did see some spot pg duties last season and did pretty well I thought with his decesion making. Do not expect anything less than a scoring pg with him on the floor though since that is his strength. Defensively, Neal is going to be alright I think. He is a very smart player and I think his experience will help from last season as to what you can and cannot get away with in the NBA. He may have problems with really quick pg's, but who doesnt in the NBA? In no way should Joseph see any meaningful PT next season unless injuries call for it.

[wildbill2u]

Let's not make too much over calling plays. Tony Parker had been an elite PG and a Finals MVP before Pop stopped calling all the plays. If coaches don't think their PG is good at calling plays then they do it themselves.

[MaNu4Tres]

For once...Manu4Tres and I agree. Mark your calendar folks.

:lol Pretty sure we've agreed other times too.

[Cane]

Neal's a significantly better overall player than Roger Mason Jr. and has experience running the point overseas. IIRC scouting reports detailed Neal was experienced at running the pick and roll. This past season it seemed like he developed good chemistry and has decent enough PG skills to handle Hill's absence. Hill's playmaking was largely based on exploding to the rim whereas Neal's got a better feel for the game and overall skillset.

[ducks]

I think Neal at backup PG is worth a try providing if Manu is on the court with him. A Neal/Ginobili could work but I highly doubt a Neal/Anderson will. Defensively, I'm not really worried: Neal will be matched up against backup PG and I'm not sold that his lack of quickness against PG will hurt him more than his lack of size against SG. Spurs telling him before the lockout that he would play some minutes at PG will allow him to work on that during the summer.

Spurs will add a vet PG for insurance purpose with a min salary. All their resources should be focused on getting forward(s) via trade or FA.

that is like saying hill can play point if manu is on the court

neal if he trully is a backup point guard should be able to play backup point against the scrubs on the other team without manu holding his fucking hand

[ChumpDumper]

That was oddly coherent.

[Bruno]

however, we are talking a minor issue here. I agree, the success of the next season depends on acquiring a quality PF in the first place, in the 2nd and in the 3rd.

Doing something at the SF spot would be also important. I know it will be really hard to move RJ but Spurs aren't in a good shape at the SF spot.

[boutons_deux]

uh oh, converting a SG into PG?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Sign AI to the vet minimum. Problem solved.



/lock thread

[ElNono]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

I could easily be wrong, but I'm not sold on Anderson yet. And I much rather Neal get the backup minutes behind Manu than him.

Heck, I wouldn't mind trading Anderson and Dice expiring for a serviceable big.

[DesignatedT]

Rather get rid of Blair than Anderson IMO.

[MaNu4Tres]

I could easily be wrong, but I'm not sold on Anderson yet. And I much rather Neal get the backup minutes behind Manu than him.


You're basically saying you'd rather give a Chris Quinn/Jacque Vaughn type 12-15 minutes a night over Anderson or Leonard.

I don't agree with that.

[TD 21]

If they can't alleviate the logjam on the wings by trading Jefferson, then Neal should be the backup PG. Playing a minimal type over Anderson or Leonard is foolish.

But not alleviating the logjam on the wings and going with Neal as a full time backup with a minimal type behind him, is a recipe for disaster. To have any chance of going on a deep run, they're going to need a top three seed. When Parker inevitably get's injured for a few weeks, they would likely be in serious trouble if they were down to Neal/minimum type at PG. Maybe Ginobili plays out of his mind and they don't lose ground, but that will only further wear him out in the process.

This is the exact mentality they've had with the front line in recent seasons, regularly playing guys out of their natural position in order to get their best talent on the floor. The roster needs to be constructed in a way that their best talent is playing their natural position and they're not forcing it, just to get them all on the floor.

[ElNono]

You're basically saying you'd rather give a Chris Quinn/Jacque Vaughn type 12-15 minutes a night over Anderson or Leonard.
I don't agree with that.

Not a Quinn type, but maybe a Vaughn type (sounds much better when you say maybe Earl Watson, IMO). I don't think Leonard will be fighting for minutes with the guards. Under that situation, one of Neal or Anderson will get the backup minutes at SG, and I rather it be Neal right now. I still don't know what Anderson brings to the table at the NBA level.

[ElNono]

Rather get rid of Blair than Anderson IMO.

Wouldn't have a problem with that. Anderson could stay as Manu mid-season injury insurance.

[Agloco]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3NrzKklYDVU/S7VLk141bkI/AAAAAAAAAUo/_yKSojjffnQ/s1600/not_again_cat.jpg

How many 2's do we need to destroy before we just get a real "1"........

[jimo2305]

lmfao.. neal @ pg..

fuck this shit.. ive been thru enough pain already

[MaNu4Tres]

It's not because you keep repeating something wrong that it will make it right.

Mason didn't suck because Pop played him at PG.

Mason sucked because:
1) He was injured. He tore a ligament in his right hand against Detroit in February 2010. Before that injury he shot 65/172 (37.7%) from 3pt land, after it, 23/90 (25.5%). This injury was serious enough to need a surgery during the off-season.
2) He was a mal-content. In case you forgot, he asked for a trade at the February 2010 deadline.
3) He isn't a very good player. A proof of that is how he was bad with Knicks this year.

But yeah, keep spreading the "Pop broke RMJ" BS.

Bruno gets it. :tu

[SenorSpur]

Not surprised and I like it.

This made too much sense with Hill's departure.

Spurs fans have to ask themselves this- Who do you want getting 15 minutes a game next year- James Anderson or another Chris Quinn?

It's a no brainer. Pop has to find significant minutes for Anderson and Leonard. Neal playing some back-up point guard is the only way that can happen.

Also, Neal has the ability to do just fine defending opposing back-up point guards for 12-15 minutes a game. Will he be able to put on a Bruce Bowen impression on the Russel Westbrooks or Chris Pauls? No way. Not even Parker or any point guard in the league can do that.

Even if you try to nitpick about this issue, does a Chris Quinn minimal type- point guard improve the defensive situation? No it does not. These minimum point guards will be just as good or worse than Neal defensively IMO. Therefore the Neal defensive issue is somewhat irrelevant.


In a nut shell: Leonard+ Anderson getting 15-20 minutes each in the rotation>> Being pessimistic about Neal's defensive ability, when his replacement (other solutions) at back-up pg won't be much better.

As others have already said, you've made a very compelling argument. On the surface, I STILL don't like it, but considering the factors you've touched on, I see how it's necessary.

I'm still in the camp of those who suggest the Spurs eliminate the roster imbalance by getting rid of RJ + another player (possibly Blair) in exchange for say, Outlaw + Petro or even a true backup PG.

[Bill_Brasky]

Neal played at a high level all season and has experience as a creator from his college/Europe days. He's not just a 3 point shooter like Mason was, he has decent handles and a nice midrange J/drive to the basket game. That floater was pretty much automatic towards the end of the season.

Give him a chance and we might just be surprised with his passing/decision-making as well.

[Spurs da champs]

RIP Neal.

Sad right.
Roger Mason JR all over again.

[The Truth #6]

More minutes for Neal is fine with me. It's not like Hill was that great as a point guard. In fact, he was horrible in regards to running the team. Neal at least has some BBIQ to make the right pass and read the defense. Without Hill we're worse defensively at that position, but if Leonard plays then maybe the team defense gets better?

Everyone freaking out about RMJ II: The Revenge needs to relax. Basically, this is insulting to Neal. Do people think he's that thin-skinned? He hit one of the most pressure shots of all last season in the playoffs...and we're worried about him choking? Get real. He'll do fine. He'll struggle defensively at times, but he was doing that already and I don't recall any massive protest from the fanbase last year regarding Neal's defense. If anything, people thought the refs weren't giving him a fair shake because he was a rookie.

Another way to look at this: Pop is deciding not to sign some lame over-the-hill backup player so that he can play a younger, better player. Haven't we gone through that too many times in the past? Who wants some useless scrub to play? This is a good sign from Pop! If anything, it makes me think he's coming to his senses rather than his brain is getting filled with ammonia from drinking too much pinot noir.

[ducks]

That was oddly coherent.

:lol

[Capt Bringdown]

So far, Neal has made the most out of every earned opportunity. I'd say he's earned this new opportunity. Defense is a concern, but more Neal is a + from this fan's perspective.

[Tyrone Jenkins]

Having Neal play some PG isn't ideal but is right in line w/ just about every franchise out there. Detroit w/ Stuckey, GS w/ Stephen Curry, etc. Hell, even OKC w/ Westbrook (he was a 2 guard in college). There are just THAT few true PGs out there. So, using him as a backup isn't bad.

However, I for one advocate Cory Joseph as the primary backup to TP - not Neal. Why? Because the Spurs need a PG not a SG convert to run the offense correctly - someone who can make the correct decisions (which is what being a PG is all about). And Joseph is more of a PG and because he's better defensively than Neal. The Spurs had to see something in him drafting him in the 1st round . . .

We were all saying the same things about TP when he was drafted that we say now about Joseph.

[ElNono]

I'll happily subscribe to giving Joseph a try. Unfortunately, inexperienced rookies just don't seem to get much play in their first season under Pop, barring some rare exceptions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One thing i do like about Neal playing point is that i get the impression that he is a good leader of men. When he would be put in at garbage time with the romper room, you could clearly see him trying to include them in the offense.

when the guard from UNC came in and was on a ten day contract, i remember Neal looking for him in garbage time trying to give him an opportunity.

If i noticed then you can bet the other players do too. People like to play for guys like that.

That being said its still going to be a nightmare watching him have to cover even scrub PG. Really athletic defenders like Memphis shut him down at the SG spot last year and Pop benched him. I hope I am wrong on this but I do not forsee good things overall.

[spurs10]

While I see Neil playing some backup pg could be good for Anderson's pt, I'm not so sure about Leonard, as I see him playing the 3 more than anything. I also wonder if getting Leonard didn't heavily influence their pick of Joseph in the 1st round. I believe RC said Joseph was their pick at 29 either way, but I know many people were surprised by this.
Also, if we are able to trade RJ for a starting 4, is Leonard our starting 3, with Butler and/or Green as his backup? I know I have high hopes for Leonard, though it's mostly based on what I've read and the NBA is a brand new world for him.

[blkroadrunners]

I'd rather just throw Cory Joseph in the fire and have him develop his PG skills while he's young.

I don't know if asking a 26 year old pure scoring/shooting guard most of his basketball life to play PG on the NBA level, even if it's for 10-15 minutes is a good idea, imo.

[mountainballer]

lol at all who panic when they hear Neal could play some minutes at PG and claim he could never do this despite not have any clue if he can or can't.
btw. he does have a history playing the point.
he came to college as a PG, but was moved to SG because La Salle had 2 PGs and ahole at SG.
for Treviso he played a combo role, often asked to orchestrate the offense and he did quite well in that role. especially running the P&R. Neals "experience" as PG can be ranked higher than the lone season of Joseph with Texas.
however, Spurs don't have the option to sign a quality back up PG anyhow, what they can do is signing a typical vet. 3rd stringer and I highly doubt that player would be better at running the point than Neal could be.
and about defense: wait and watch what he can do before predicting how 2nd and 3rd string PGs will destroy him with their speed. there are always several options how to defend and depending on match ups there are enough scenarios how to react to such issues. (for example, let's see what Leonard can do in this department. it's sometimes a better strategy to defend speed with length, than speed with speed)

[DrSteffo]

I don't see how having just one PG on our team would be a good thing. Imagine if Parker goes down with an injury late in the season or in the POs. Last season we had only one SF and I didn't like that either. If there is a logjam at one position (SG), then maybe make a trade. On the other hand having Neal and Anderson as SGs is a good thing. Let Manu rest some games, let Neal or Anderson rest some games. It's a long season. If Joseph isn't ready then bring in a cheap backup PG. If Neal is a better PG than him then he should have the minutes there.

[Bruno]

that is like saying hill can play point if manu is on the court

neal if he trully is a backup point guard should be able to play backup point against the scrubs on the other team without manu holding his fucking hand

But Neal isn't truly a backup PG. He is a natural SG who will likely never have the skillset to be a true PG.

The reason why Spurs think at playing Neal at PG is because he should be paired with Manu at SG. Manu has been a damn great playmaker this past couple of years and he will take a lot of the load in that area of Neal's shoulders.

Like it or not, Manu is a huge part of the equation. The true question to wonder isn't "Can Neal be a PG?", it's "Can a Neal/Ginobili backcourt work?".

[ElNono]

I think Manu makes any backcourt work, since he would be the de-facto backup PG. The concern is the fact that Manu will have his minutes limited, and most likely will play SG minutes too, reducing his availability in the backup PG role. There's also the fact that Tony had his own share of injuries and we have no serviceable backup PG. Even though it is a long season, the West is tough enough as it is to be undermanned.

This has been something the Spurs have been lacking for the past couple of seasons (since Vaughn was gone pretty much). I guess Hill was supposed to fill the role, but he never really developed into a reliable player at that position. I also don't think that the Spurs need 'a quality backup PG' (also don't buy they couldn't acquire one via trade if they really needed one), but more of a seasoned vet PG who can be insurance when those TP and Manu legs get long in the tooth during the season or some injury has them temporarily sidelined.

[mountainballer]

again, if it's about rotation and possible back court combinations, most questions are already answered.
we have Tony, Manu, Neal and Anderson.

Tony+Manu works - 18 MPG
Tony+Neal works - 6 MPG
Tony+Anderson: ? should work - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal works - 6 MPG
Manu+Anderson: ? could work - 4 MPG
Neal+Anderson: ? likely not

small line up
Tony+Neal+Anderson - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal+Anderson - 2 MPG

[Interrohater]

Some of you guys are looking way too far into this. Neal is ice cold and you can see that he has a high BBIQ. In addition to him playing point overseas and before his pro career, he has the drive to get it done. I just want him on the floor. What ever way that happens is fine with me. He was absolutely my favorite player last season. What an incredible pickup for us.

[ElNono]

again, if it's about rotation and possible back court combinations, most questions are already answered.
we have Tony, Manu, Neal and Anderson.

Tony+Manu works - 18 MPG
Tony+Neal works - 6 MPG
Tony+Anderson: ? should work - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal works - 6 MPG
Manu+Anderson: ? could work - 4 MPG
Neal+Anderson: ? likely not

small line up
Tony+Neal+Anderson - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal+Anderson - 2 MPG

The only lineup where you have Neal as a PG is '? likely not'.
If your point is that Manu should be the backup PG, then that's ok.
That's not what the OP is talking about though.

[ElNono]

He was absolutely my favorite player last season.

Mine too. He still has a lot to learn at this level, but I thought he always put forth the effort.

[Interrohater]

Mine too. He still has a lot to learn at this level, but I thought he always put forth the effort.
:tu

That half-time buzzer beater against LA exemplifies his 'never give up' mentality.

[silverblackfan]

:tu

That half-time buzzer beater against LA exemplifies his 'never give up' mentality.

Yeah, the guy is a hard nosed warrior. I love his confidence and sweet jump shot.

[Bruno]

I think Manu makes any backcourt work, since he would be the de-facto backup PG.

No, he wouldn't. Manu and Neal will share the PG duties like Manu and Hill did when they were paired.

[blkroadrunners]

Tony+Manu works - 18 MPG
Tony+Neal works - 6 MPG
Tony+Anderson: ? should work - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal works - 6 MPG
Manu+Anderson: ? could work - 4 MPG
Neal+Anderson: ? likely not

small line up
Tony+Neal+Anderson - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal+Anderson - 2 MPG

I think that's the best case scenario for Neal in terms of being at the point.

I'm not worried about him defensively. During the time he comes in, the best PGs will be off the floor for a couple minutes. I'd rather for him to be utilized at his best: coming off screens for the open shot and providing a scoring, punch, not executing plays.

[ElNono]

No, he wouldn't. Manu and Neal will share the PG duties like Manu and Hill did when they were paired.

I personally don't think Hill ever did much PG duties outside of bringing the ball up when he was paired with Manu. And when he did took the role, he was pretty awful at it. Just my opinion.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's starting to look more and more like the team is going to need a new coach. Pop just refuses to learn from his mistakes. Every single person on this forum could see the lack of Splitter hurting this team months before it blew up in Pop's face.

Trying to force players to play out of position just won't work. Neal is going to have a down year as RMJ II when he's forced to play PG and out of his comfort zone.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That pretty much covers it.

Good to see the stubborn SOB learned from the Roger Mason Jr. fiasco.

[024]

it's a bad coaching decision if neal ever finds himself bringing up the ball as PG. pop shouldn't put players out of their element. he may not have been entirely responsible for mason's demise but he contributed to it by putting mason in a position to fail miserably. to a smaller degree he did it with hill by trying to jam the position of back up pg down his throat (and hill could actually play some pg) and of course putting small forwards at the PF position like finley.

people are overrating neal. his ball handling and passing are average for a SG and would be mediocre as PG. he should stick to his role as a back up SG. and it's not like neal is a young player who can still learn like pop's experiment with hill. at least hill may have developed into a good PG but neal isn't going to be developing anything entering his late 20s.

[Frankie23]

What does playing point guars means?

There are only 2 playmakers: Parker and Ginobili. Other players can run the ball, start a team offense or play one-one..
Last year, when the Spurs didn't have manu or tony, i found Neal a better playmaker than George Hill. He run better the pick and roll and also, because he's a great 3p shooter and mid-range shooter he can create a shot for himself easily..
With the great PG there're in the league, it's really hard to defend them one-one, so it's kind of a team defense..Who is fast and strong enough to defend Westbrook and Rose??

[TD 21]

lol at all who panic when they hear Neal could play some minutes at PG and claim he could never do this despite not have any clue if he can or can't.
btw. he does have a history playing the point.
he came to college as a PG, but was moved to SG because La Salle had 2 PGs and ahole at SG.
for Treviso he played a combo role, often asked to orchestrate the offense and he did quite well in that role. especially running the P&R. Neals "experience" as PG can be ranked higher than the lone season of Joseph with Texas.
however, Spurs don't have the option to sign a quality back up PG anyhow, what they can do is signing a typical vet. 3rd stringer and I highly doubt that player would be better at running the point than Neal could be.
and about defense: wait and watch what he can do before predicting how 2nd and 3rd string PGs will destroy him with their speed. there are always several options how to defend and depending on match ups there are enough scenarios how to react to such issues. (for example, let's see what Leonard can do in this department. it's sometimes a better strategy to defend speed with length, than speed with speed)

I love how all those that are completely sold on this bring up the fact that Neal played the point in college and in Europe, as if it's the same as playing it in the NBA. Like the athletes and speed/quickness he'll up against are the same.

Offensively, as I've said, I think they'll be more than fine with him playing the point, because he'll have an elite play maker next to him, in Ginobili, so they can share the duties.

Defensively, I don't need to wait and watch, it's obvious he's going to struggle. This idea that "he'll only play against backups" ignores this: Parker averaged 32.4 mpg last season. With Hill traded, maybe he get's a slight bump next season, but he's never averaged above 34.4. mpg in a season. So we're looking at probably close to 15 mpg at the point for Neal. Save for Nash, every elite PG plays considerably more than that and even a number of the ones below them do, so you can be sure that Neal will spend a decent amount of time guarding starters. Also, there's plenty of explosive backups. Leonard may be an option, but it's doubtful he could do even an adequate job on the ones with elite explosiveness and speed/quickness.

I know that with the rules being what they are, no one can really defend quick PG's one on one. But if it's obvious that a team has only one guy with even a chance at doing an adequate job defending them (and that one guy plays limited minutes and carries a heavy load offensively), they're going to exploit it. Just like this team was exploited in the post and at the rim.

[Wu36]

Good for Gary he earned it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love how all those that are completely sold on this bring up the fact that Neal played the point in college and in Europe, as if it's the same as playing it in the NBA. Like the athletes and speed/quickness he'll up against are the same.

Offensively, as I've said, I think they'll be more than fine with him playing the point, because he'll have an elite play maker next to him, in Ginobili, so they can share the duties.

Defensively, I don't need to wait and watch, it's obvious he's going to struggle. This idea that "he'll only play against backups" ignores this: Parker averaged 32.4 mpg last season. With Hill traded, maybe he get's a slight bump next season, but he's never averaged above 34.4. mpg in a season. So we're looking at probably close to 15 mpg at the point for Neal. Save for Nash, every elite PG plays considerably more than that and even a number of the ones below them do, so you can be sure that Neal will spend a decent amount of time guarding starters. Also, there's plenty of explosive backups. Leonard may be an option, but it's doubtful he could do even an adequate job on the ones with elite explosiveness and speed/quickness.

I know that with the rules being what they are, no one can really defend quick PG's one on one. But if it's obvious that a team has only one guy with even a chance at doing an adequate job defending them (and that one guy plays limited minutes and carries a heavy load offensively), they're going to exploit it. Just like this team was exploited in the post and at the rim.

More than that, the last time I checked Neal was on the second string at SG and was clearly our worst perimeter defender. He was getting driven on by bench shooting guards and was a foul dispenser. Giving him quicker competition is only going to expose him more.

I love Neal and i have zero doubt that he will try his guts out but i cannot help but feel that this only serves to set him up to fail.

[Fireball]

I know Corey Joseph will probably not see much playing time, but I would try him out with Manu. Manu handles the ball on offense und Joseph who is said to be a good defender takes care of the opponents point guard. However, I agree with the people here saying that the Spurs should stop this combo guard thing. Spurs realy do need another PG if Tony Parker goes down with an injury which is more likely this season as he will play internationally.

[The Truth #6]

No, he wouldn't. Manu and Neal will share the PG duties like Manu and Hill did when they were paired.

If by share you mean Hill would bring the ball up and then hand it off to Manu to make plays, then yes they shared PG duties. When he said Manu acts as the de-facto PG, I believe that's what he's talking about. I think you're actually agreeing.

[The Truth #6]

More than that, the last time I checked Neal was on the second string at SG and was clearly our worst perimeter defender. He was getting driven on by bench shooting guards and was a foul dispenser. Giving him quicker competition is only going to expose him more.

I love Neal and i have zero doubt that he will try his guts out but i cannot help but feel that this only serves to set him up to fail.

I don't think anyone thinks it's ideal that Neal play backup PG, but what are the other options? Does anyone actually take comfort that Quinn would be a better option? If Parker went down with an injury, are people actually going to feel great about Quinn taking over the team? Of course not. We have no great backup PG no matter who it is. The team is going to have to make do with the players they have and try to play the better players as much as they can. That's what most teams do in the playoffs - they play their best players. I don't see why the situation should be considered that much different for the team with this situation.

[ElNono]

I don't think anyone thinks it's ideal that Neal play backup PG, but what are the other options?

Perhaps we can explore doing a trade or signing a veteran? Those are an options that can be done now in the offseason (I should say, after the lockout). I'm just hoping the Spurs feel there's a need there, instead of thinking we can make do with what we have.

[MaNu4Tres]

I love how all those that are completely sold on this bring up the fact that Neal played the point in college and in Europe, as if it's the same as playing it in the NBA. Like the athletes and speed/quickness he'll up against are the same.

I don't think anyone is "completely sold" on Neal being a great point-guard. I think some of us our sold on the fact that it's the best situation for the Spurs. I honestly don't think there's a significantly better option the Spurs can turn to, through trade or free agency. You can't tell me you rather have an Arroyo- Gary Neal- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench) over a Gary Neal- James Anderson- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench).




Defensively, I don't need to wait and watch, it's obvious he's going to struggle. This idea that "he'll only play against backups" ignores this: Parker averaged 32.4 mpg last season. With Hill traded, maybe he get's a slight bump next season, but he's never averaged above 34.4. mpg in a season.

Parker averaging 32.4 mpg last season had more to do with blowing teams out. Every competitive game last year Parker played more minutes than his average. If Gary Neal has to play more than 10-12 minutes at the point it will be because the Spurs are either blowing out the opposition or getting blown out-- which then won't be a big deal. If Parker does get injured for a significant amount of time, Gary Neal will either get help from a low tier veteran (best case- Acie Law;worst case- Arroyo-Quinn) or Cory Joseph. In my opinion I rather throw Cory Joseph in the fire, instead of having another Quinn experiment. Joseph's shooting and defensive ability are already at the NBA level- which are the two most important attributes the Spurs would need from him for 15-20 minutes a night-- and if he does well then you expand that role (again this is under your pessimistic theory of Parker getting injured for a significant amount of time).



I know that with the rules being what they are, no one can really defend quick PG's one on one. But if it's obvious that a team has only one guy with even a chance at doing an adequate job defending them (and that one guy plays limited minutes and carries a heavy load offensively), they're going to exploit it. Just like this team was exploited in the post and at the rim.

You're over exaggerating. Exploiting mismatches in the post and exploiting mismatches at the point is apples and oranges. Point guards initiate the offense farther away from the basket- where teams on the defensive are able to use the concept of team defense more often and more effectively by cutting of penetrating lanes off the ball and keeping the point guard out of the paint.

Sure it does leave the wide-open threes on occasion- but most of the time the defending point guards are beaten anyway because of a good pick that is set (even if the defending point guard is very quick;90% of dominant offensive point guards initiate the offense through the pick- therefore most of the reasoning behind stopping the point-guard has to do with an adequate mobile big who can hedge effectively enough for the point guard to recover going over/under the screen).

Am I saying you don't need an decent point guard and all you need is a great defensive big man? No i'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is it's kind of foolish to be so pessimistic on the Neal situation. Some of you make it sound like Neal is going to face Russel Westbrook in a one on one 82 game series next year to decide the Spurs' fate. That is not the situation.

The real situation is that Neal will have to battle recovering effectively through variety of screens for 10-12 minutes in the competitive games and 15-20 minutes a night when the game is out of hand. I think he's more than capable to handle that load, especially with the help of his teammates on the defensive end. There's not enough evidence to say he can't do the job like you're assuming. In my opinion, stopping point guards has more to do with your big's ability to hedge and recover and at the same time, defend the paint by contesting effectively without fouling. Because point guards will and do get in the lane, whether Bruce Bowen or Gary Neal is guarding them because of the screen and poor defense by the helping big.

On the contrary, in the post is where it's much easier to exploit mismatches because of how close it is to the basket ( where there's less help behind the defender and it's where the most efficient shots are scored). That is why team's with dominant interior presence usually get very far at the end of the year because it's the hardest to defend because of how close it is to the basket and how far the help has to commit- only to slightly effect the situation because of the size of the post presence and because of how it leaves shooters wide-bare naked open.

[TD 21]

I don't think anyone is "completely sold" on Neal being a great point-guard. I think some of us our sold on the fact that it's the best situation for the Spurs. I honestly don't think there's a significantly better option the Spurs can turn to, through trade or free agency. You can't tell me you rather have an Arroyo- Gary Neal- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench) over a Gary Neal- James Anderson- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench).

It's the best current situation, but player movement hasn't even begun. Maybe they are able to trade Jefferson, without taking back an SF with a bad contract? Or, maybe they do take back an SF with a less expensive (but still bad) contract, but there's a one time amnesty and Pop/Buford talk Holt into buying him out? Or, maybe they talk Holt into buying Jefferson out? Maybe there's a quality PF unexpectedly available and the Spurs are forced to give up Anderson in the trade? There's tons of possibilities. If the perimeter rotation stays status quo, then of course it makes the most sense to play Neal at the point.


Parker averaging 32.4 mpg last season had more to do with blowing teams out. Every competitive game last year Parker played more minutes than his average. If Gary Neal has to play more than 10-12 minutes at the point it will be because the Spurs are either blowing out the opposition or getting blown out-- which then won't be a big deal. If Parker does get injured for a significant amount of time, Gary Neal will either get help from a low tier veteran (best case- Acie Law;worst case- Arroyo-Quinn) or Cory Joseph. In my opinion I rather throw Cory Joseph in the fire, instead of having another Quinn experiment. Joseph's shooting and defensive ability are already at the NBA level- which are the two most important attributes the Spurs would need from him for 15-20 minutes a night-- and if he does well then you expand that role (again this is under your pessimistic theory of Parker getting injured for a significant amount of time).Fair enough, but when Parker inevitably get's injured, they're going to need a steady hand to turn to. Maybe Joseph surprises and is that guy, but there's no logical reason to think he is that guy at this point. The bottom of the barrel types you mentioned aren't good enough, someone a cut above is necessary.


You're over exaggerating. Exploiting mismatches in the post and exploiting mismatches at the point is apples and oranges. Point guards initiate the offense farther away from the basket- where teams on the defensive are able to use the concept of team defense more often and more effectively by cutting of penetrating lanes off the ball and keeping the point guard out of the paint.

Sure it does leave the wide-open threes on occasion- but most of the time the defending point guards are beaten anyway because of a good pick that is set (even if the defending point guard is very quick;90% of dominant offensive point guards initiate the offense through the pick- therefore most of the reasoning behind stopping the point-guard has to do with an adequate mobile big who can hedge effectively enough for the point guard to recover going over/under the screen).

Am I saying you don't need an decent point guard and all you need is a great defensive big man? No i'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is it's kind of foolish to be so pessimistic on the Neal situation. Some of you make it sound like Neal is going to face Russel Westbrook in a one on one 82 game series next year to decide the Spurs' fate. That is not the situation.

The real situation is that Neal will have to battle recovering effectively through variety of screens for 10-12 minutes in the competitive games and 15-20 minutes a night when the game is out of hand. I think he's more than capable to handle that load, especially with the help of his teammates on the defensive end. There's not enough evidence to say he can't do the job like you're assuming. In my opinion, stopping point guards has more to do with your big's ability to hedge and recover and at the same time, defend the paint by contesting effectively without fouling. Because point guards will and do get in the lane, whether Bruce Bowen or Gary Neal is guarding them because of the screen and poor defense by the helping big.

On the contrary, in the post is where it's much easier to exploit mismatches because of how close it is to the basket ( where there's less help behind the defender and it's where the most efficient shots are scored). That is why team's with dominant interior presence usually get very far at the end of the year because it's the hardest to defend because of how close it is to the basket and how far the help has to commit- only to slightly effect the situation because of the size of the post presence and because of how it leaves shooters wide-bare naked open.Sounds great, if you ignore the fact that the Spurs are not much better than an average defensive team (though a move or two could change that) and don't have an abundance of mobility.

You're underestimating how many lightning quick PG's there are and how teams will exploit the Spurs. These are just the backups: Teague, Walker, Barea, Beaubois, Ford, Flynn, Bledsoe, Douglas, Williams, Brooks, Mills and Bayless. You just saw what happened to the Lakers against the Mavs. It wasn't the only reason they lost, but arguably the biggest on court reason was their inability to contain the ball. When coupled with their lack of mobility defensively (and subsequent slow rotations), it led to the abundance of open threes.

Neal is a mediocre defender to begin with and you don't think there's the potential for disaster with him guarding even more explosive players? If this were the Spurs of old defensively, this would be irrelevant. There's no evidence, because we haven't seen it yet, but does that not mean we can't hypothesize? Did we really need to wait and see Blair defend in the NBA to know that he'd struggle?

It is easier to exploit mismatches in the post, but that's not the point. The point is, if you have such a glaring weakness, it's going to be exploited. This team, in recent seasons seems to have some obsession with playing players out of their natural position. As opposed to constructing a roster where their best five fit seamlessly together and where their players are playing their natural position. Other than Marion playing some backup four, the Mavs didn't consistently play anyone out of position. The Lakers haven't in recent years either. All they've done is combined to win the past three championships, but apparently the Spurs know better, with their zero second round wins in that span.

[MaNu4Tres]

It's the best current situation, but player movement hasn't even begun. If the perimeter rotation stays status quo, then of course it makes the most sense to play Neal at the point.

Exactly my point.

At the same time, I rather use the current trading assets for a starting caliber power forward that has the length, size, and mobility to defend and rebound effectively. That is the biggest issue right now. A lot more so than trying to improve the back-up point guard situation which would only hinder the progression of our best young prospects at the wing.



Fair enough, but when Parker inevitably get's injured, they're going to need a steady hand to turn to. Maybe Joseph surprises and is that guy, but there's no logical reason to think he is that guy at this point. The bottom of the barrel types you mentioned aren't good enough, someone a cut above is necessary.

I don't think it is as necessary.



You're underestimating how many lightning quick PG's there are and how teams will exploit the Spurs. These are just the backups: Teague, Walker, Barea, Beaubois, Ford, Flynn, Bledsoe, Douglas, Williams, Brooks, Mills and Bayless. You just saw what happened to the Lakers against the Mavs. It wasn't the only reason they lost, but arguably the biggest on court reason was their inability to contain the ball. When coupled with their lack of mobility defensively (and subsequent slow rotations), it led to the abundance of open threes.

I'm not underestimating how lightning quick some point guards are. I'm just understanding their limited roles on irrelevant teams. I don't think this is as relevant as you're implying. The only mismatch that should have the Spurs worry about is Barea (and he might not even return to Dallas--because of the additions of Butler/Fernandez). The other players play for teams that aren't in contention or play for teams in other conferences and at the same time they are back-ups who play limited minutes and have a small role for their teams. It's not as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

The biggest issue is interior defense, now that Spurs have improved their perimeter defense with the additions of Leonard and essentially Anderson.


Neal is a mediocre defender to begin with and you don't think there's the potential for disaster with him guarding even more explosive players? If this were the Spurs of old defensively, this would be irrelevant. There's no evidence, because we haven't seen it yet, but does that not mean we can't hypothesize? Did we really need to wait and see Blair defend in the NBA to know that he'd struggle?

No I don't think it's a recipe for "disaster". Why? I elaborated above on why.

I think improving the Blair and Bonner situation is the bigger issue. Spurs just can't play them together. Spurs have to improve that situation through trade by parting with one of them. Having them on the court simultaneously hurts the defense in so many ways. If Spurs can't improve that area, it doesn't matter who the Spurs have on the perimeter to defend-- the paint will get exposed by guards and post players.

[ElNono]

You can't tell me you rather have an Arroyo- Gary Neal- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench) over a Gary Neal- James Anderson- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench).

Why not?

[MaNu4Tres]

Why not?

Several reasons

1) Talent
2) Defensive ceiling
3) Offensive ceiling
4) Size
5) Progression of Anderson and Leonard (two best wing prospects in the Spurs organization)-- They need playing time and are more than capable.
6) Arroyo/Quinn type isn't significantly better than Neal in any point guard attribute on either end of the floor. Therefore, playing an Arroyo/Quinn type just because they are a labeled "point guard" is a stupid thing to do if it hinders the progression of young players with higher ceilings. Playing Neal at back-up point allows the Spurs to develop and give their best young talent playing time.

[TD 21]

Exactly my point.

At the same time, I rather use the current trading assets for a starting caliber power forward that has the length, size, and mobility to defend and rebound effectively. That is the biggest issue right now. A lot more so than trying to improve the back-up point guard situation which would only hinder the progression of our best young prospects at the wing.


No question, starting PF -- specifically the type you alluded to -- is the biggest issue right now. But if they trade for that player, there's a good chance one of the wings will be in the trade. Since there's a good chance that type of PF will be making at least $5 million a season, the only way I could see the Spurs taking on that amount of salary is if they're able to get rid of Jefferson in the process. Which would open up more minutes for the young wing prospects and pave the way to sign a credible backup PG, such as Watson.


I don't think it is as necessary.You will, if they don't sign someone like Watson and Parker is injured for more than a couple of games.


I'm not underestimating how lightning quick some point guards are. I'm just understanding their limited roles on irrelevant teams. I don't think this is as relevant as you're implying. The only mismatch that should have the Spurs worry about is Barea (and he might not even return to Dallas--because of the additions of Butler/Fernandez). The other players play for teams that aren't in contention or play for teams in other conferences and at the same time they are back-ups who play limited minutes and have a small role for their teams. It's not as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

The biggest issue is interior defense, now that Spurs have improved their perimeter defense with the additions of Leonard and essentially Anderson.Limited or not, they're NBA players and they're pretty much all scoring PG's. If they have a significant advantage, they're liable to have a big game and enough of them could be the difference between a 1-3 seed or a 4-6 seed. We've seen this many times in recent seasons. Ford has went off a few times, Bayless had a career game against them, Brooks and Lowy ran wild in a game, Beaubois nearly singlehandedly sent a series to game 7 (and might have, had Carlisle either left him in, or put him back in). And that was all with Hill on the team, who's one of the better PG defenders in the league.

I agree that the Mavs are the biggest concern in this regard and that the Fernandez acquisition sealed Barea's fate, in terms of him not returning. But they have Beaubois to replace him.

They've improved the perimeter defense in theory only. In reality, as presently constituted, one of Anderson or Leonard will most likely not play major minutes and may not be in the rotation altogether. They've gotten bigger on the perimeter, but they've also gotten slower.


No I don't think it's a recipe for "disaster". Why? I elaborated above on why.

I think improving the Blair and Bonner situation is the bigger issue. Spurs just can't play them together. Spurs have to improve that situation through trade by parting with one of them. Having them on the court simultaneously hurts the defense in so many ways. If Spurs can't improve that area, it doesn't matter who the Spurs have on the perimeter to defend-- the paint will get exposed by guards and post players.Obviously, that's the bigger issue, but this is still a issue.

[ElNono]

Several reasons

1) Talent
2) Defensive ceiling
3) Offensive ceiling
4) Size
5) Progression of Anderson and Leonard (two best wing prospects in the Spurs organization)-- They need playing time and are more than capable.
6) Arroyo/Quinn type isn't significantly better than Neal in any point guard attribute on either end of the floor. Therefore, playing an Arroyo/Quinn type just because they are a labeled "point guard" is a stupid thing to do if it hinders the progression of young players with higher ceilings. Playing Neal at back-up point allows the Spurs to develop and give their best young talent playing time.

I disagree. I think Arroyo is a seasoned 9 year NBA vet, really good team-oriented point guard and would fit well in a system like the Spurs in the backup PG role.

Progression is nice and all, but the Spurs are banking to win now.
Anderson isn't a bad contract to keep around as insurance in case Neal fizzles or the team decides to go full tank mode after this season (rookie deals is what you want to have at that point). But the SG position is overloaded, and playing guys out of position so you can get progression from rooks isn't my idea of trying to contend, tbh.

Seeing that Bonner won't be moved, nor lose a spot on the roster, I wouldn't mind moving Anderson or Blair (or both) along with the Dice trade chip for an upgrade in the frontcourt.

[MaNu4Tres]

No question, starting PF -- specifically the type you alluded to -- is the biggest issue right now. But if they trade for that player, there's a good chance one of the wings will be in the trade. Since there's a good chance that type of PF will be making at least $5 million a season, the only way I could see the Spurs taking on that amount of salary is if they're able to get rid of Jefferson in the process. Which would open up more minutes for the young wing prospects and pave the way to sign a credible backup PG, such as Watson.

You will, if they don't sign someone like Watson and Parker is injured for more than a couple of games.

If that's the case, the Spurs will be extremely lucky to get Watson for the minimum. For one, he's the best eligible point guard for the minimum on the market and secondly, his market value is arguably higher than the minimum. Third, San Antonio isn't as attractive to high quality minimum players anymore. Usually those attractive top minimum free agents are attracted to championship scenarios, which includes a definite opportunity for significant playing time. That doesn't match what the Spurs have to offer compared to other elite suitors. Realistically, the Spurs are going to have a better opportunity at signing an Arroyo or bring in a player from the D-League to help (like D.J Strawberry).


Limited or not, they're NBA players and they're pretty much all scoring PG's. If they have a significant advantage, they're liable to have a big game and enough of them could be the difference between a 1-3 seed or a 4-6 seed. We've seen this many times in recent seasons. Ford has went off a few times, Bayless had a career game against them, Brooks and Lowy ran wild in a game, Beaubois nearly singlehandedly sent a series to game 7 (and might have, had Carlisle either left him in, or put him back in). And that was all with Hill on the team, who's one of the better PG defenders in the league.

And Ford, Bayliss, Brooks/Lowry all ran wild against Parker and Hill defending them. Why? Because of the laughable Bonner/Blair front-court not being able to contain them when helping pick and roll's by hedging effectively or rotating over effectively outside the circle to contest or take a convincing charge. Defending point guards has more to do with the team defense more so than individual defense because of the plethora of pick and rolls most teams run with the point guard-IMO.



They've improved the perimeter defense in theory only. In reality, as presently constituted, one of Anderson or Leonard will most likely not play major minutes and may not be in the rotation altogether. They've gotten bigger on the perimeter, but they've also gotten slower.

They've gotten more physically imposing on the perimeter, to the point where they will be more effective at guarding the prototype 6'5"-6'8" wing. Wings of that size don't have great lateral speed/movement but what they do have is length and strength to the point where they were easily able to get off efficient looks against the undersized wings (Hill/Neal/Manu) in ISO situations. Spurs improved their perimeter defense in this regard. With Leonard and Anderson, Spurs have physical imposing wings with athleticism who can not only fight through screens effectively, but they won't give up significant separation like Hill/Neal did because of their length and girth (being able to absorb the contact most offensive players use to get off shots or to create separation).


Obviously, that's the bigger issue, but this is still a issue.

A small issue. The smallest the team has IMO. Hypothetically, if it is as important as you're implying and if there's a season, we still don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing when the season kicks off in February if Parker gets hurt for a significant amount of time.

[MaNu4Tres]

I disagree. I think Arroyo is a seasoned 9 year NBA vet, really good team-oriented point guard and would fit well in a system like the Spurs in the backup PG role.

Progression is nice and all, but the Spurs are banking to win now.
Anderson isn't a bad contract to keep around as insurance in case Neal fizzles or the team decides to go full tank mode after this season (rookie deals is what you want to have at that point). But the SG position is overloaded, and playing guys out of position so you can get progression from rooks isn't my idea of trying to contend, tbh.


I disagree entirely.

[DesignatedT]

Anderson needs to see the court next season. Guy has the ability to be a real difference maker on this team IMO.

I understand the reasoning behind bringing in a PG that is truly a backup point guard but if the options are players the caliber of Arroyo and Quinn than I would definitely pass. If we are talking about a PG that's still young and in there prime (maybe tj ford?) than I could see me going the other way and being open to the idea (depending on how Neal performs).

Of course minimum-type PGs is the most likely scenario in which I would rather take my chances with Neal and Manu running point.

[The Truth #6]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals. Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.

Does anyone think Neal should play less? Having him play at the 1 versus the 2 - he's going to get burned either way but he should still play. Playing Leonard should improve the team defense, which is more important. Get it? Different players add different strengths, you know, the that whole team concept.

[MaNu4Tres]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals. Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.



Truth speaking truth. :tu

[DesignatedT]

At the end of the day it's way to early to tell what the Spurs could or should do. With everything R.C has said this off-season about wanting to trade., you definitely get the vibe that we are nowhere near done making moves. Who knows if we are able to move RJ or package a player with Dice.

Realistically, saying that we won't be able to sign a good point guard because were "cheap" isn't realistic at all seeing that our whole roster is probably on the trading block outside of the big 3.

[TD 21]

If that's the case, the Spurs will be extremely lucky to get Watson for the minimum. For one, he's the best eligible point guard for the minimum on the market and secondly, his market value is arguably higher than the minimum. Third, San Antonio isn't as attractive to high quality minimum players anymore. Usually those attractive top minimum free agents are attracted to championship scenarios, which includes a definite opportunity for significant playing time. That doesn't match what the Spurs have to offer compared to other elite suitors. Realistically, the Spurs are going to have a better opportunity at signing an Arroyo or bring in a player from the D-League to help (like D.J Strawberry).

Watson played last season for the veteran's minimum, so there's no reason to think he won't sign for the veteran's minimum again, particularly if a team such as the Spurs comes calling. The only other top ten teams that could use a backup PG are the Celtics and possibly Heat. The Celtics will probably just bring back West though, who's better and wants to stay. And the Heat, if they're to sign another PG, it'll likely be one that's a better shooter. Besides, how attractive is Watson to those teams, if not one signed him last season? The closest Watson can come to playing on a contender and playing significant minutes is probably the Spurs.


And Ford, Bayliss, Brooks/Lowry all ran wild against Parker and Hill defending them. Why? Because of the laughable Bonner/Blair front-court not being able to contain them when helping pick and roll's by hedging effectively or rotating over effectively outside the circle to contest or take a convincing charge. Defending point guards has more to do with the team defense more so than individual defense because of the plethora of pick and rolls most teams run with the point guard-IMO.That's the point. If they did that against Parker and Hill, it'll only be worse with Neal replacing Hill. It is more about team defense, but there's no reason to think the team defense will be that much better, unless they're able to rid themselves of Jefferson and trade for someone like A. Johnson, which would break up the Blair-Bonner tandem. As presently constituted, all Splitter does is replace McDyess, there doesn't appear to be many minutes available for Leonard and Anderson isn't projected to be a better defender than Hill.


They've gotten more physically imposing on the perimeter, to the point where they will be more effective at guarding the prototype 6'5"-6'8" wing. Wings of that size don't have great lateral speed/movement but what they do have is length and strength to the point where they were easily able to get off efficient looks against the undersized wings (Hill/Neal/Manu) in ISO situations. Spurs improved their perimeter defense in this regard. With Leonard and Anderson, Spurs have physical imposing wings with athleticism who can not only fight through screens effectively, but they won't give up significant separation like Hill/Neal did because of their length and girth (being able to absorb the contact most offensive players use to get off shots or to create separation). No question about it. That's the one positive if Jefferson isn't traded. The days of watching undersized, athletically deficient SG's being physically over matched defending big, powerful, athletic wings, will be over.


A small issue. The smallest the team has IMO. Hypothetically, if it is as important as you're implying and if there's a season, we still don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing when the season kicks off in February if Parker gets hurt for a significant amount of time.I never made it more than what it is, I'm just explaining the likely downfalls. Yeah, we don't know what Joseph will be capable of doing, but again, we can hypothesize. Joseph is a soon to be 20 year old PG, coming off a down freshman season and was a projected 2nd round pick. This is a team still trying (presumably) to contend for a championship. They can't count on him to contribute next season.

[ElNono]

Sure is a lot of hang wringing in this thread about theoreticals.

Isn't that what the offseason is all about? :D


Realistically, the Spurs won't be able sign a great backup point guard without moving young pieces that should be played because they are cheap, show promise, and are possibly the future of the team (however grim that may be in a few years.) So we are going to squander the future for a PG who will hardly play?

The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available. Every time TP or Manu have gone down due to some sort of injury in the past couple of seasons, even when Hill was around, the same question pops up: Who's going to run the point? Hill sucked at it for the most part, RMJ sucked at it, and rightly so. They're not PGs.

And no, you don't need to trade Anderson for a backup PG. But having a serviceable PG allows you to move him if you need an extra sweetner to add to the Dice contract in order to upgrade in another area where the team does have a real need: the front court.


I can't believe everyone is pissing in their pants about not having a great backup PG. Most teams don't even have a legitimate PG and we have Parker who is an all star. You can't be great at every position. PG is one of the positions we should worry about the least.

Let's not forget that a couple of relatively inexperienced backup PGs (Dragic and Vasquez) kick our team's asses the last couple of seasons during the playoffs. There's good talent out there, even at the backup spot.

You should strive to put together the best team you can possibly have, at least on paper. That's the bottom line. Every position is important. Especially for an aging group like the Spurs that no longer have superstar talent in the roster. We need more consistent and solid contribution from everybody else.

[Blackjack]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a title, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

[ElNono]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a title, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

And I agree that the priority to shore up the team is somewhere else.
It's also conceivable that this team is done as far as contending goes.

But if we entertain the notion that it might not be done, I think a serviceable backup PG is a 'need' in this team. Just one backup PG won't take them over the top, but the collection of addressing needs and incorporating the available and relatively new talent would be what allows this team to be the best it can be, IMO.

Just my 2c anyways. I've been wrong plenty of times before.

[benefactor]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a title, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .
Exactly...which is why I have no problem with Neal playing backup PG. If Neal can resurrect his play as a ball handler like he was in Europe...fantastic. I feel like he can, but if he can't...whatever. It's not like him struggling or not struggling will determine the fate of this team.

This is a team in transition. They don't need to waste money on a scrub like Carlos Arroyo that isn't going to make any difference. They need to work on two things...somehow getting another rotation big and making sure Leonard, Anderson and Splitter get plenty of minutes so they can continue to develop, as I feel these three are the only current pieces that are part of the future of this team.

[benefactor]

The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available.
But if Manu is not on the floor and Parker is not on the floor then where does the offense come from? Who becomes the offensive option you are looking for with neither on the floor and a vet backup point running the show? There is no one...which is the big reason they are out of contention. Unless the the Spurs somehow manage to obtain either a big or a wing that can make plays there is no reason to debate Gary Neal vs. vet PG as it makes little to no impact from a contention perspective.

[wildbill2u]

The FO/Pop attempted to revamp the team with some players who appeared to be the best players available at the time, hoping to find some diamonds in the rough, but they might just turn out to be players other teams wouldn't take a chance on because of obvious deficiencies in size, speed, or whatever. When players drop in the draft there is usually a reason. So we took some chances.

Now we are stacked with unproven youthful tweeners at SG/SF--Green, Butler, Anderson, Hanga--a tweener at C (Blair) and another undersixed tweener perhaps in Leonard. It's interesting to note that Leonard himself has expressed the thought that he might have to play some guard in the NBA as a defensive specialist.

Neal is perhaps a little small at SG, but has proved his value as a shooter. Joseph is another mystery pick by the FO at his size and projected ability.

One way to look at this part of the roster is that we have a lot of versatility. Another way to look at it as we have unproven uminpressive rotation parts.

[ElNono]

But if Manu is not on the floor and Parker is not on the floor then where does the offense come from? Who becomes the offensive option you are looking for with neither on the floor and a vet backup point running the show?

Duncan? Posting up Tiago, and having Neal actually extend the floor as the SG with him? Pick and roll with Blair while you have shooters making room for them?

Unfortunately when this has happened in the last few seasons, it was Hill calling up ISOs for himself and everybody else standing around. In RMJ's case, it was dribbling down the clock and chucking some crap shot, or trying to play pick and roll with horrible handles.

When you don't have an actual go-to guy to make lemonade, execution becomes key. That's why you want experienced people that can organize the offense and run plays. I think Gary has balls of steel, but I don't think he's that kind of organizer type of guy (yet).

[Phillip]

:lmao

sp:lolrs = f:lolcked

[The Truth #6]

Isn't that what the offseason is all about? :D



The Spurs don't need a 'great backup point guard', IMO. They just need a serviceable, experienced, true PG. Not a guy that can bring the ball upcourt to Manu, but a guy that can run the offense even if Manu isn't available. Every time TP or Manu have gone down due to some sort of injury in the past couple of seasons, even when Hill was around, the same question pops up: Who's going to run the point? Hill sucked at it for the most part, RMJ sucked at it, and rightly so. They're not PGs.

And no, you don't need to trade Anderson for a backup PG. But having a serviceable PG allows you to move him if you need an extra sweetner to add to the Dice contract in order to upgrade in another area where the team does have a real need: the front court.



Let's not forget that a couple of relatively inexperienced backup PGs (Dragic and Vasquez) kick our team's asses the last couple of seasons during the playoffs. There's good talent out there, even at the backup spot.

You should strive to put together the best team you can possibly have, at least on paper. That's the bottom line. Every position is important. Especially for an aging group like the Spurs that no longer have superstar talent in the roster. We need more consistent and solid contribution from everybody else.

I agree that it would be great to have a solid backup PG. I just don't think it's our most pressing issue. I think improving the team defense should be a larger priority. Getting rid of RJ is way more important, in my opinion, then finding a Dragic level backup PG. But I still don't think we should trade young talent to get rid of RJ either.

I think Pop has to utilize what he has, and playing Neal at backup PG is a great way to do that. It's not like we're winning a title this year or anytime soon. Could playing Neal at the 1 negatively affect his game? Possibly, but I think he'll do better than Hill. So, I guess I'm not that worried.

[ElNono]

I agree that it would be great to have a solid backup PG. I just don't think it's our most pressing issue. I think improving the team defense should be a larger priority. Getting rid of RJ is way more important, in my opinion, then finding a Dragic level backup PG. But I still don't think we should trade young talent to get rid of RJ either.

Personally, I would rank the priorities:
1) Trade for a big that doesn't suck now that Dice retired
2) Get rid of the mental softies: RJ, Bonner.
3) If RJ can be moved, bring in somebody to shore up the SF position. Leonard will struggle at times in his rookie season.
4) Get a vet min backup PG (already explained why and in what role)

That is if we want to play to win, which I think as long as the Big 3 are on the team, we want to do. I don't honestly think the Spurs will be prioritizing development until one or more of the big 3 retire/is moved, and the team is ready to tank for a high draft pick.


I think Pop has to utilize what he has, and playing Neal at backup PG is a great way to do that. It's not like we're winning a title this year or anytime soon. Could playing Neal at the 1 negatively affect his game? Possibly, but I think he'll do better than Hill. So, I guess I'm not that worried.

Fair enough. I'm not worried at all, BTW. I'll be shocked if this team plays anything close to passable defense when the next playoffs (whenever that might be) come around. With that in mind, my expectations are fairly low.

[TD 21]

Seems like too many people are stuck in the Championship mentality of yesteryear.

The Spurs aren't a solid backup point away from a title, or a backup player of any sort. They need to develop their next star or trade for one/them.

Otherwise, they're just spinnin the tires . . .

Who cares what the general consensus is? The fans and the media aren't the ones making the decisions. The people that are making the decisions have made it abundantly clear through their actions that they intend to attempt to continue contending until Duncan retires. Therefore, when we as fans discuss how the roster/rotation should be constructed, it should be with that in mind.

It's obvious they're not a solid backup PG away from a title. But again, with the championship being the goal, they're probably going to need a solid backup PG, which is something they shouldn't have much difficulty acquiring.

The "next star" isn't coming until Duncan retires and whoever it is will probably be a second tier star that's not capable of being the best player on a championship team. It's as if people think if they start re-building now, they'll have another Duncan in no time. Unless you're the Lakers, it doesn't work that way. The lottery is clearly rigged and because of what the Duncan era has done for basketball in San Antonio, the league no longer has a reason to give them another all time great, since there's no longer the threat of the team leaving and it's not a premier market. Throw in the fact that they're stockpiling decent young assets and the fact that they'll have a lot of financial flexibility three years from now and you've got the makings of a team that will be mired in mediocrity for years to come.

But I guess anytime you can give away what's likely your final chance (even if it is a sliver of a chance) at a championship for a lifetime and slap your all time greatest player in the face simultaneously -- so that you can get on with years of mediocrity -- you have to do it.

[benefactor]

Duncan? Posting up Tiago, and having Neal actually extend the floor as the SG with him? Pick and roll with Blair while you have shooters making room for them?

Unfortunately when this has happened in the last few seasons, it was Hill calling up ISOs for himself and everybody else standing around. In RMJ's case, it was dribbling down the clock and chucking some crap shot, or trying to play pick and roll with horrible handles.

When you don't have an actual go-to guy to make lemonade, execution becomes key. That's why you want experienced people that can organize the offense and run plays. I think Gary has balls of steel, but I don't think he's that kind of organizer type of guy (yet).
Look at the avatar...I love Duncan as much as the next guy but that's just not going to work anymore...not consistently anyway. The funny thing about all the stuff you mentioned is that Neal is actually a better fit on the second unit at point if you want to spread the floor. Kick out from the big, extra pass and he's wide open(not that I see any of the other options as all that appealing either).

As far as making lemonade...where we differ in opinion is that you seem to think having a vet that can run plays helps with the Spurs current personnel. I don't think it does because that personnel is just ok and some vet minimum player isn't going to maximize their potential any better than Neal can. Without a true threat on the second unit, they are the same lemons.

[benefactor]

But I guess anytime you can give away what's likely your final chance (even if it is a sliver of a chance) at a championship for a lifetime and slap your all time greatest player in the face simultaneously -- so that you can get on with years of mediocrity -- you have to do it.
Duncan was slapped in the face when the ink dried on the new contracts for Bonner and RJ. There is no sliver. It's over.

[TD 21]

Duncan was slapped in the face when the ink dried on the new contracts for Bonner and RJ. There is no sliver. It's over.

Maybe so, but at least the intent was to attempt to continue to contend. If they're to get their next star now, it would most likely involve trading Parker, among others, to acquire it, or it would take a fire sale of epic proportions that led to a high lottery pick. That would be throwing in the towel, which is a much bigger slap in the face than trying with flawed players.

After game three, I called them gutless worms and basically said that they had a look that they were resigned to their fate and that it was over. But, if you think about it, how many teams are clear cut better than them? At the absolute worst, they're the eighth best team in the league. More likely, they're a few spots better. You just saw what a team in that range, with experience, urgency and luck, can do. So yes, there is a sliver and as long as there still is, they need to pursue it. Because this will be the last time for the foreseeable future that there's even that.

[ElNono]

Look at the avatar...I love Duncan as much as the next guy but that's just not going to work anymore...not consistently anyway. The funny thing about all the stuff you mentioned is that Neal is actually a better fit on the second unit at point if you want to spread the floor. Kick out from the big, extra pass and he's wide open(not that I see any of the other options as all that appealing either).

I just think he works better as the spot up shooter or driver as part of the kick-out, instead of being the ball dominant guy that sets up the play. In a way, that is his role when Manu is actually running the point.

Maybe it's just that I've gotten too burned out seeing RMJ and Hill dominate the ball with incessant dribbling and no movement, and I feel Neal would do the same. Vaughn couldn't literally do shit offensively, but the ball moved when he was around (sure, another era).


As far as making lemonade...where we differ in opinion is that you seem to think having a vet that can run plays helps with the Spurs current personnel. I don't think it does because that personnel is just ok and some vet minimum player isn't going to maximize their potential any better than Neal can. Without a true threat on the second unit, they are the same lemons.

Well, this is from the optic that we get an inside guy to contribute. Be it whatever is left on Tim's tank, Tiago developing something other than that weak ass layup, Blair showing an incredible improvement on his horrific floater, or if we add some other front court guy, whatever he brings...

Even if there isn't a defined inside threat, moving the ball and executing whatever plays, is what's going to get you an open look. Our second unit when Manu isn't out there has had ball-stoppers for too long, and near zero execution.

[benefactor]

Maybe so, but at least the intent was to attempt to continue to contend. If they're to get their next star now, it would most likely involve trading Parker, among others, to acquire it, or it would take a fire sale of epic proportions that led to a high lottery pick. That would be throwing in the towel, which is a much bigger slap in the face than trying with flawed players.

After game three, I called them gutless worms and basically said that they had a look that they were resigned to their fate and that it was over. But, if you think about it, how many teams are clear cut better than them? At the absolute worst, they're the eighth best team in the league. More likely, they're a few spots better. You just saw what a team in that range, with experience, urgency and luck, can do. So yes, there is a sliver and as long as there still is, they need to pursue it. Because this will be the last time for the foreseeable future that there's even that.

That attempt was completely misguided...but that's all history now. I have already said that if they don't want to trade Parker or Manu then that's fine. There are trophies in the case at the AT&T because of them so the goals that were set when they were acquired were achieved. I once lamented becoming the Jazz of the early '00's but I've come to terms with that. Unlike the Jazz, at least the Spurs got some trophies out of the deal...and whatever the future may hold I am at peace with it.

We are just in different places in what we expect. Were they better then how they played? Perhaps. But Dallas, OKC and Memphis will all be better this year. The Spurs will only be older with a few young players with some upside. They need another impact player to be back in the title conversation...and I don't see how that can happen unless they trade Parker or Manu. We both seem to agree that is equivalent to rebuilding.

So all that said...a vet PG is a waste of time and money. Let Neal run it, win a bunch of games and enjoy what is left of the ride. The Spurs will still win 50 and we will likely see some great basketball from them to remind us of the good old days. At this point that's enough for me.

[benefactor]

double

[Blackjack]

Who cares what the general consensus is? The fans and the media aren't the ones making the decisions. The people that are making the decisions have made it abundantly clear through their actions that they intend to attempt to continue contending until Duncan retires. Therefore, when we as fans discuss how the roster/rotation should be constructed, it should be with that in mind.

You're overthinkin it, my man.

Objectively, you just gotta ask yourself what the team needs to contend, where they are in the overall landscape of things and what you should be expecting from the team at this juncture.

The expectations and standards should be lowered. And with that in mind, it's time to think about what gets them back to where they want to be, and that means TD and Manu becoming key, essential players in lesser roles with Parker and new blood taking starring roles. That takes time, development.

The Spurs are in transition. Making moves and playing the game as if you're on an even playing field - at this point - is nothin more than spinnin the tires. The Championship, Duncan, era is over. Time to find a new way to skin a cat - or fade into obscurity.

[Bruno]

Spurs being done as a contender, having big holes in their roster or needing to blow up the team has almost nothing to do with the backup PG topic.

The situation is as simple as it can be. Spurs have 3 basic options for their backup PG slot:
1) Cory Joseph.
2) Playing without a true backup PG and going with a Neal/Ginobili backcourt.
3) Going after a relatively cheap vet free agent like Earl Watson, TJ Ford or Mike Bibby.

The question is: what option(s) should Spurs take? If none is satisfying, can Spurs do something more complicate like a small trade or going after an euro?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Spurs being done as a contender, having big holes in their roster or needing to blow up the team has almost nothing to do with the backup PG topic.

The situation is as simple as it can be. Spurs have 3 basic options for their backup PG slot:
1) Cory Joseph.
2) Playing without a true backup PG and going with a Neal/Ginobili backcourt.
3) Going after a relatively cheap vet free agent like Earl Watson, TJ Ford or Mike Bibby.

The question is: what option(s) should Spurs take? If none is satisfying, can Spurs do something more complicate like a small trade or going after an euro?

A combination of 3 and 1 with 2 in reserve for in season injuries.

Neal at point should be a contingency and not a strategy.

[TD 21]

Bruno's got it right, there's little to no correlation between the backup PG spot and the Spurs being done as a contender. It's a minor hole that they can have a veteran's minimum guy fill for a year. Even teams in transition need to plug holes with veteran stopgaps.

benefactor, misguided or not, that's not the point. The point is, they were at least trying. If they trade Parker and/or Ginobili, that's the opposite of trying and that's the ultimate slap in the face to Duncan.

I have no expectations of them winning another championship. What I'm saying is, the roster is being constructed in such a way that that's still the intent (while re-building simultaneously). So when we discuss roster moves and the rotation, it should be with that in mind.

The Spurs are fully capable of beating any of those three teams; the problem would be having to beat multiple ones. I don't buy that those teams are in a different league though. There's not much separating the top five-six teams in the West.

Blackjack, they need a couple of attainable pieces, virtually every possible thing to go right and they need to catch lightning in a bottle at the right time. Last year at this time, the Mavs needed the exact same thing. A year later, they're champions. Are the Spurs any worse off now than the Mavs were going into last off season? Like I said, I'm not expecting anything at this point, but they're at worst a top eight team and if you're in that group, you've got a chance, considering the lack of a dominant team.

So let me get this straight. You wouldn't trade Parker or Ginobili, but you want to forget about contending and start re-building towards a new core that can contend? Last time I checked, they don't have a single young player who projects to be a top three player on a contending team.

Whatever microscopic chance they have left at contending, they should utilize. Because that's probably better than the chance they'll have with their next core. They still have 3 top 30 players. They'll be hard pressed to get 1 in the future.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I think the biggest difference between the Spurs and Mavs is that the Mavs still have a franchise player in his prime. I know some people wanna look at the Mavs this year as hope for the Spurs going into next season, but if the Spurs aren't capable of having the best player in a playoff series anymore then they sure as hell better have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players of the series. Dirk was probably the best player of the entire playoffs. Without elite D, that puts an awful lot of pressure on the Spurs offense as a whole, and with players like Bonner and RJ still on the roster I still see this team struggling without a true strength to fall back on.

[DesignatedT]

When Manu is at his best he can still be a superstar caliber player, even today. The Spurs have to find a way to keep the guy healthy which doesn't seem realistic these days.

Watch the Spurs get out to another solid start and be a top team in the west at all star break only to slip and falter due to injuries and age down the stretch. It just seems inevitable right now.

It really goes back to RJ. When we acquired this guy, he was supposed to be able to take a huge load of pressure off of the big 3 to perform each and every night... not cause added pressure.

[TJastal]

Several reasons

1) Talent
2) Defensive ceiling
3) Offensive ceiling
4) Size
5) Progression of Anderson and Leonard (two best wing prospects in the Spurs organization)-- They need playing time and are more than capable.
6) Arroyo/Quinn type isn't significantly better than Neal in any point guard attribute on either end of the floor. Therefore, playing an Arroyo/Quinn type just because they are a labeled "point guard" is a stupid thing to do if it hinders the progression of young players with higher ceilings. Playing Neal at back-up point allows the Spurs to develop and give their best young talent playing time.

Having a 2nd year backup SG like Neal running the point with two guys who have zip for nba experience is a recipe for disaster.

I'm with El Nono here, I'd much rather just get a veteran backup PG and let Neal play his natural position. And I have no idea why everyone is so gung ho about Anderson but if you want to shift guys around I think it would be more feasible to have Anderson and Leonard shift to 3/4, respectively, which also has the added benefit of alleviating the Bonner/Blair problem.

[benefactor]

Anderson is a 2/3...not a 3/4.

[ElNono]

Anderson is a 2/3...not a 3/4.

Agree. I would actually argue he's just a 2 at this point in his career.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

A good, sensible decision if the Spurs believe they have something in Anderson/Green/Butler AND see Leonard as a part of the rotation straight away. Neal will do everything that Hill has done, while opening minutes at the 2 and 3. If the Spurs sign someone like Watson, then they'd better trade one of Anderson or Neal because there won't be enough minutes at the wing positions.

PG : Tony - 33 mins, Neal - 10 mins, Joseph - 5 mins
SG : Manu - 28 mins, Neal - 10 mins, Anderson - 10 mins
SF : RJ : 28mins, Leonard - 15 mins, Anderson - 5 mins

Additionally Leonard may see a few minutes at the 4 from time to time and one of Green/Butler may stick if the Spurs like him, they're decent prospects. A vet PG would take away Anderson's minutes. Personally, I'd prefer giving Anderson a chance to show what he can do, he could be next season's Neal as an impact, certainly has the talent anyway.

Whether this rotation is good enough for a championship run is another question.

[The Truth #6]

I think TJ was suggesting Anderson as 3 and Leonard as 4?

[TJastal]

i think tj was suggesting anderson as 3 and leonard as 4?

yes!

[TJastal]

Agree. I would actually argue he's just a 2 at this point in his career.

I tend to think this way too, I was just indulging the Anderson fanboys for a minute.

All indulgences aside, Green IMO would be the better fit as a combo G/F. Seems to me he's got the tools to pull it off, reminds me of a young Doug Christie.

Hard to say if Anderson will even be on this team next season, the spurs didn't bother to secure his option before the lockout started and the spurs are flush with 2's.

And I have serious doubts whether Pop will really roll with Neal as the team's backup point guard when push comes to shove. That's a risky path to go down and has a high likelihood of failure (RMJ) and therefore should only be used in a pinch not as a planned course of action.

In the (likely) scenario that Neal's role continues to be backup SG, the spurs really don't need to pay both Anderson and Green (unless they are really convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anderson is going to be a future star in the league (ie my defenition of "star", not Cane's).

[ElNono]

Anderson will very likely get his option picked as soon as the lockout is over. Makes no sense not to.

[ChumpDumper]

Hard to say if Anderson will even be on this team next season, the spurs didn't bother to secure his option before the lockout startedWhy would that be necessary?

[elemento]

lol @ thinking Spurs won't pick James Anderson option.

Philly did not pick the 4th year option of Jrue Holliday and the 3rd year option of Evan Turner.

Detroit did not pick the 3rd year option of Greg Monroe and the 4th option of Austin Daye. I guess those teams don't care about those players right ? :lmao

Pathetic troll attempt. Don't even know how you guys can take this serious.

[Chomag]

Why would someone saying that its hard to say if they will be picking up his contract a troll attempt?

Saying he will be signed is based off an assumption, while the fact is his contract hasn't been picked up yet. Either way no one knows other then the people planning it.

[benefactor]

Agree. I would actually argue he's just a 2 at this point in his career.
Agreed. I've thought from the jump that his game and size were a better fit in the NBA at SG. I think he can defend well there and be more effective offensively.

[MaNu4Tres]

I tend to think this way too, I was just indulging the Anderson fanboys for a minute.

All indulgences aside, Green IMO would be the better fit as a combo G/F. Seems to me he's got the tools to pull it off, reminds me of a young Doug Christie.

Hard to say if Anderson will even be on this team next season, the spurs didn't bother to secure his option before the lockout started and the spurs are flush with 2's.

And I have serious doubts whether Pop will really roll with Neal as the team's backup point guard when push comes to shove. That's a risky path to go down and has a high likelihood of failure (RMJ) and therefore should only be used in a pinch not as a planned course of action.

In the (likely) scenario that Neal's role continues to be backup SG, the spurs really don't need to pay both Anderson and Green (unless they are really convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anderson is going to be a future star in the league (ie my defenition of "star", not Cane's).

Just wow, on so many levels.

[stephen jackson]

this next season i expect tony to have a career year... its time he takes over now... he got his contract he better get 36-38 minutes a game and score 23+...

[Hooks]

neal playing pg

YPGimXSASic

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Lolololololololololololololololololol
I get it hes playing pg because that guy intercepted his pass lololololololololololololololol lololololololololololololololol lololololololololololololololol!

[TJastal]

Originally Posted by TJastal

I tend to think this way too, I was just indulging the Anderson fanboys for a minute.

All indulgences aside, Green IMO would be the better fit as a combo G/F. Seems to me he's got the tools to pull it off, reminds me of a young Doug Christie.

Hard to say if Anderson will even be on this team next season, the spurs didn't bother to secure his option before the lockout started and the spurs are flush with 2's.

And I have serious doubts whether Pop will really roll with Neal as the team's backup point guard when push comes to shove. That's a risky path to go down and has a high likelihood of failure (RMJ) and therefore should only be used in a pinch not as a planned course of action.

In the (likely) scenario that Neal's role continues to be backup SG, the spurs really don't need to pay both Anderson and Green (unless they are really convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anderson is going to be a future star in the league (ie my defenition of "star", not Cane's).


Just wow, on so many levels.

Just like I thought back in July, Green is proving himself already the better long-term prospect between him and JA, and even though Anderson made the team, I doubt he'll stick once his rookie contract is up (might even be traded before). Pop also opted to sign a backup PG (Ford, like I thought he would) in order to keep Neal at SG.

Just, wow.

[TDMVPDPOY]

this next season i expect tony to have a career year... its time he takes over now... he got his contract he better get 36-38 minutes a game and score 23+...

wait a minute here.......

[therealtruth]

All indulgences aside, Green IMO would be the better fit as a combo G/F. Seems to me he's got the tools to pull it off, reminds me of a young Doug Christie.


That's a diss to Doug Christie. Christie came into the league playing pg and later sg and sf. He had much better playmaking and ball handling.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Just like I thought back in July, Green is proving himself already the better long-term prospect between him and JA, and even though Anderson made the team, I doubt he'll stick once his rookie contract is up (might even be traded before). Pop also opted to sign a backup PG (Ford, like I thought he would) in order to keep Neal at SG.

Just, wow.

Well played my friend.:toast

[elemento]

I don't think one game proved that Green is a better long-term prospect than JA. Green had a good game, just like JA had a few before he got injured last season. I am a bit disappointed with his passive game so far this season, but it's way too early to claim something like this.

[jjktkk]

I don't think one game proved that Green is a better long-term prospect than JA. Green had a good game, just like JA had a few before he got injured last season. I am a bit disappointed with his passive game so far this season, but it's way too early to claim something like this.

This. Anderson, not suprisingly, seems to be pressing a bit. I do like Green though, and I hope Pop will continue to give him consistant minutes. As the season unfolds, I can see Pop going with the hot hand, in regards to Green and Anderson.

[ElNono]

After reviewing this thread, I'm glad the Spurs recognized bringing a backup PG as a need. Too early to call TJ Ford a success, but I liked the signing and what he brought to the table so far.

Now the team looks more complete, going 3 deep both at the SG (Manu/Neal/Anderson) and SF (RJ/Khawi/Green), without having players having to do cameos on positions that are not natural to them.