Pop and TD on the evolution of Spurs Basketball

[timvp]

Pop and Tim Duncan have had some interesting quotes lately that allow us to hear their updated view of Spurs Basketball. As we all know, the Spurs of yesteryear relied on an elite defense and a precision offense to win ballgames and championships. These days, San Antonio mostly wins with its offense, while their defense is average at best.

Although it's become obvious that Pop no longer stresses defense nearly as much anymore, we hadn't really ever heard it out of the horses' mouths.

First, here's a paraphrase of what Duncan said after the Suns game: "In today's NBA, you can't just count on holding the other team to under 80 points -- you have to be able to score. And we think we can do that."

Here's the actual quote from Pop after tonight's game against the Kings: "We spend more time on offense these days because our defense won't be as good as it used to be in the past -- it just won't. So we gotta pick it up somewhere."

This shouldn't come as a shocking revelation to any Spurs fans but it is notable that the Spurs have officially changed their focus as a team. I have some questions that I'm still debating in my own head and I'm interested in the opinions of the citizens of SpursTalk.

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?



Thank you in advance for your time.

[100%duncan]

1. Yes, with the addition of Diaw, Mills, and Sjax, I see some signs.
2. tbh, No. Because we have guys who can make plays on their own and who has high bball IQ's, why not improve the defense too at the same time having a great defense?
3. I think you meant defensively, well, I think, their's a chance, especially with a jumbled west top 8, no one clearly has an advantage over the other.
4. Of course they can! But it doesn't mean that they don't improve their D too, right?

[xtremesteven33]

It could be done. It's all about matchups in the NBA playoffs. And I also think they have the tools to become a solid defensive team. They may not impose their defensive will on opponents but with thier high basketball IQ I believe they can make smarter plays than 90% of the teams in the league.

[spurs4real]

We are a middle of the pack defense with a top 5 offense, it levels out perfectly therefor we will be fine and we are legit contenders unlike last year.

[ducks]

making blair a 5 big not a starter will pick up the d

[ffadicted]

1. Elite? No. Good, sure
2. Yes. We just don't have the personnel anymore
3. Yes
4. Yes

[crc21209]

In a way, Pop and Tim are right. It might not be something us hardcore Spurs fans want to hear, but it's the truth. We all have to face that these Spurs arent going to be as great defensively as the Championship year Spurs. Those teams had a prime Duncan in 03' and semi-prime in 05'. A prime Manu in 05'. A prime Parker in 07'. A prime Bowen in every championship year. D-Rob anchoring the defense in 99' and 03'. Guys like Horry, Barry, etc...We have the tools to be an above-average defensive team if Pop plays his cards right. With guys like Manu, Jax, Leonard, Duncan, Diaw, and Splitter, they can be very good, but great...I'm not so sure. We also have to take into account that the NBA is an uptempo offensive league now, with more high-octane offensive teams and scorers like Durant, Westbrook, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, etc. It's a perimeter/guards offensive league now.....

[DAF86]

1-Maybe. A Tony-Manu-Leonard-Diaw-Duncan line-up with Green-Jackson-Splitter coming up the bench should be at least above average on the defensive end.

2- I would like him to emphasize defense more. I certainly didn't like this last comment.

3- I should have to see it first to believe it. Even 'till today the best defensive teams are the ones that win the championships.

4- It's a long, long shot.

[Splits]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?


I don't think such thing as an "elite defensive team" exists any longer. There are too many athletes which can create enough space to drain shots with little room and a hand in their face. Rule changes in the NBA have facilitated this. "Lockdown defense" these days means not fouling excessively and getting a hand up in every shot. Dudes just make more shots than they used to.



2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?


Yes. There's no other way to win.




3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average offensively win an NBA championship?


Assuming you meant average defensively, yes. But breaking every hypothetical into "offense vs. defense" is not the right paradigm. The correct paradigm is, "can I match up better than what the other guy has on the floor between timeouts". I predict that Pop sets a new precedent this year by winning the 'chip by running a combination of players out there from a deep bench. I don't think that's been done before, to have 10-12 guys all play a key role in a 'chip. I think we do it this year.



4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?


No doubt about it we can. This isn't hockey or soccer. Numbers or offense/defense mindsets aren't the proper way to predict the outcome of the season. Intangibles win rings, and we got everything working for us.

[HarlemHeat37]

1. No, they don't have the personnel..they can peak as an above average D..

Duncan is a good defender, but no longer elite..he's a liability in the pick and roll..

Blair is one of the worst defensive bigs in NBA history, Bonner is average, Splitter is too injury prone, and Diaw is new to the team..

On the perimeter, the Spurs don't have any great defenders..Leonard and Jackson are above average, the rest are either average or worse..

2. Yes and no..I understand the idea to focus on offense, but not to the extent that Pop has reached..it's still possible to focus on offense, while playing guys like Splitter over Bonner/Blair and potentially improving the D..

3. Usually, no..in a season without any elite teams and a shortened schedule, yes..

4. Yes, see #3..

[Beanzamillion21]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
When I watch Kawhi and Green, I can't help but to feel the future is bright on those fronts.


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense.
Only to an extent, I like how they have been clamping down in the 4th quarter in these last 2 games. Shows me that defense still matters, more so when it is needed instead of the entire 48 minutes.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average offensively win an NBA championship?
Only if you sacrifice some time to commit back to defense. Even some of the run and gun teams of old play defense in spurts now.


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?
We shall all patiently wait and see. :lobt:

[crc21209]

Another thing to think about is that the West doesnt have a GREAT defensive team. Sure the Lakers have two 7-footers, but even they arent a juggenaut on D. The West's number 1 team-Thunder give up points in bunches. Look at scores around the league 95+ almost every night...

[GSH]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

In a word, no. And I'm not sure the officiating would allow a team to play defense the way the Spurs once did. That's not conspiracy theory, I just think it's a strategic move to encourage a different style of play. No more sinister than adopting the 3P shot.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

I don't think he has a choice. Some of it is determined by personnel. I don't think you can have a really elite defensive team without the patience of older players. This team has a lot of young (and young-ish) players. More importantly, this team depends on those young players. I think Pop is smart to make some adjustments to reflect the parts he has to work with.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

The Spurs are showing signs of being able to step up the defense for stretches. I think that might be enough. Especially if the offense doesn't totally live-or-die by the 3P shot. That high-variance play is a killer in the playoffs. The recent moves are showing me that they are no longer going to have to be an outside-in offense.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

I don't think so. They're going to have to think more balanced than that. In fact, they have so much offensive firepower, they still might be best off to think defense first, even if they aren't great at it.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

No Yes No No

[Splits]

Where are the damn game grades?

[Cry Havoc]

Blair is one of the worst defensive bigs in NBA history

Not even close. Blair is statistically an above average defender.

[jesterbobman]

1) We lack the tools of a complete set. We have good defenders, but to maximise value, can't play all at the same time(Net Value of Changing combination from Blair/Duncan and Splitter/Bonner to Splitter/Duncan and Blair/Bonner is negative.) Good changes from end of the season, I know RC mentioned a need for more positional size(By which, I think he meant getting bigger at SG and SF) which they've done wonders on.

2) Probably the right decision. Marginal value of the practice time probably dictates spending more time on offense. I might change the distribution a bit towards defense, but an offensive orientation is sensible in the practice games. I wish the bigs were better defensively, but they did the best with the opportunities available(Blair, Splitter were obvious picks)

3) Definitely. Defense is more consistent game to game, and a more stable variable in quality over time. It's far better to be really good at both though. No real reason to prefer a 80-75 win over a 110-100 win though.

4) We can win. Efficient offense + Winning Possession battle(the Main Reason Kawhi is a beast) means we can win with a meh defense. We're not a lock, or the favorite, but we are in the elite group.

[Borosai]

Balance.

[ElNono]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team?

No


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

No


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

No


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

No

[Mel_13]

No



No



No



No

ElNoNoNoNo

[ElNono]

ElNoNoNoNo

:lol

[T Park]

No
No
Yes
Maybe

[timvp]

Where are the damn game grades?

I'm rewatching the game. It'll be a few hours. Don't wait up, tbh.

[Robz4000]

1. Elite? Not on a consistent basis. Top 10? Yes, and they're beginning to show the ability.

2. As much as I loathe to admit it, yes. He still stresses defense, but if the offense is able to carry the team too, then it all balances out.

3. I'm not too sure. It hasn't been done before, but there's a first for everything.

4. As long as they have the ability to play tough defense when needed, possibly. I think the Spurs have a good chance this year, but only because of how weak the West is. If they make the Finals they'll win it (as long as a core piece isn't injured to the point of being ineffective).

[crc21209]

I'm rewatching the game. It'll be a few hours. Don't wait up, tbh.

Bonner- A++++++ Best game he's had in years! :lol

[HarlemHeat37]

Not even close. Blair is statistically an above average defender.

:lol according to what?..

Synergy has had him ranked as one of the worst DPPP players in the NBA, the past few seasons..IIRC, he was actually ranked dead last, last year..

Using basic stats, the Spurs defense has always been a few points worse, defensively, when Blair is in the game..

He's easily one of the worst defensive bigs in NBA history..

[Spursfanfromafar]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

With the current set up, "elite defensive team" is out of the question. But they are good enough to be "above average" and better than where they are now - which is exactly league average.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

Any good coach's "good" should come from his ability to maximise his team's strengths and minimise his team's weaknesses. The team's strength include unselfishness, very high basketball IQ, experience and bonhomie. This should aid its offense and therefore focusing more on it is a good way forward.

The team's weakness is the lack of a shot blocking big and an "experienced" perimeter defender. They have a decentish replacement in Tiago Splitter for the former and the up and coming Leonard/Jackson/Green combine to nearly make up for the latter. Pop can minimise on the losses here without offsetting the focus on offense, by playing these teammates more and getting them in a groove.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

No. A team that is great offensively will only win if its defense is capable of holding its own during the crunch and on offsetting if not shutting down the primary weapon of the opposition. As currently constructed, the Spurs are capable of doing both - it remains to be seen if they will be able to actually do it. I will say they are in the process of doing so and not yet confirmed as a championship contender.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?


Not really. Spurs can win a championship only by privileging the need to augment their naturally gifted and honed skills on offense with effort and savvy on the defensive end.

[angelbelow]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

I want to say yes but a few issues..
-Tiago and Kawhi have both proven to be above average defenders in all aspects. Man to man, team defense, being disruptive, reading plays, etc etc. But they need some time, especially Kawhi. It won't happen this season but they have potential to be top tier.
-With the addition of Jackson and Diaw, we have the tools to be above average. I'm optimistic that our team will come together despite so few games left this season.
-Probably won't see elite, but above average isn't out of reach.


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

-From a business perspective, I do agree. The Spurs have gone from one of the "boring-est" teams to a very enjoyable run and gun team. Its a funner, more exciting brand of basketball.
-For 2011/2012 I disagree. Especially with our new editions, I don't think there is an excuse to not focus on defense. With that said, our additions are very new and it remains to be seen what Pop is going to choose to focus on.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

-In general, my instincts say emphatic no. I wonder if its ever been done and if so, how rare of a feat it is.
-I would imagine that its really rare but not impossible.. so in rare situations where the stars align, it could happen.
-I think planning for a team to be great on offense and average on defense is suicide if you want to win. But could be a home run recipe for gaining fans.


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

-Each day that goes by, my confidence in this team grows. I believe we can win this year but we're definitely underdogs. But not if we remain offense-first.. we need to tweak our line up:
-Duncan, Splitter and Diaw should see the bulk of the minutes up front.
-Parker, Ginobili, Jackson, Leonard should round out the rest.
-Bonner, Neal, Green, Blair should fill out depending on match ups but shouldn't see more than 10-17 minutes a game.
-With those changes, I believe that we can remain offense first while being above average defensively.

[HarlemHeat37]

For comparison sakes, here are a few comparable teams to the Spurs, in the Duncan era..

2007 Suns: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..the Suns lost to a defensively elite Spurs team..however, the Suns were the 2nd best team in the NBA, that season, and they could have potentially won, if the suspensions played out differently..

2006 Mavs: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..beat a Spurs team that was arguably the best team in the NBA that year, and a defensive-oriented team..lost in the Finals, controversially, to a Heat team led by a historic superstar performance..

2003 Mavs: 1st offensively, 9th defensively..lost to a defensive juggernaut in the Spurs, although Dirk missed most of the series, giving them virtually no chance..the league was weak, that year, worse than this current season..

[TDMVPDPOY]

defense wins championships, if u dont play d, u dont get minutes

now it seems like doesnt matter how many shots you brick, as long u nail a few you get minutes even though ur still a shit player on the floor just trading baskets...

live by the 3 die by the 3....

[Sense]

I think we are good enough defensively to do it when it counts, we are not going to be as good as we were in other years because we don't have shot-blockers and in order to have that kind of defense you need to have half-court offense, which I really don't think we have. We are no longer that team offensively, therefore the pace of the game is faster, and we just can't do that AND play great defense.

[Danny.Zhu]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

No. Duncan is too old.


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

No. Although the defense will not become as nearly as what it used to be, we still need to focus more on that than the offense.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

I don't see why not.


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

No, they can't.

[DAF86]

I think we are good enough defensively to do it when it counts, we are not going to be as good as we were in other years because we don't have shot-blockers and in order to have that kind of defense you need to have half-court offense, which I really don't think we have. We are no longer that team offensively, therefore the pace of the game is faster, and we just can't do that AND play great defense.

The Spurs are arguably the best team at running half-court offense. -_-

[mathbzh]

1) The tools to become solid but probably not elite

2) Yes if the idea is to have elite offense & solid defense. Recent moves are a step in the good direction.

3) Yes:
No team in the West has an elite defense.
OKC, Spurs, Clippers... are average at best.
So I guess one team with elite offense will make it to the finals. Then anything can happen.

4) Yes (see 3)

[TDMVPDPOY]

we dont have elite defense like the previous championship teams, but we have the talent there on t he roster that should be playing at that high of a level in defense, we shown glimpses of it when we are able to have 2-3 wing players on the court who can play above avg defense, and have 2 more wing players on the bench that can come in and carry the defensive load.....

last night against the kings with the remaining 5mins with their strongest defensive lineup to date, they could turn it on if they wanted to...now all they need is to turn that shit for certain parts of each quarter whether to hold onto leads or stop the other team from making any sort or runs.....

[GSH]

last night against the kings with the remaining 5mins with their strongest defensive lineup to date, they could turn it on if they wanted to...now all they need is to turn that shit for certain parts of each quarter whether to hold onto leads or stop the other team from making any sort or runs.....


There's a reason I said that I don't think you can be an elite defensive team without the patience of older players. It's got a lot to do with keeping that focus for a whole game. This team doesn't have it.

Young players like, say, Danny Green. They know Pop wants defense, and they just have to try and make something happen. They want steals, they want blocks, they want a perfectly-timed leap into a passing lanes. Older players like, say, Bowen. They know that what they want is to make nothing happen. It's not sexy, and it takes patience and unwavering focus. It's just my opinion, but I don't think you can get that from the younger guys.

That reminds me of an old joke. I shouldn't, but I will. Then lights out.

An old bull and a young bull are standing on a hill, looking down at a field of cows. The young bull turns to the old one and says, "Hey... let's run down this hill and catch one of those cows and **** her. The old bull turns to him and says, "No... let's walk down the hill and **** ALL of them."

We've got too many young bulls to be an elite defensive team.

[Yorae]

The spurs one solid big who can block shot and defend the post well from being an elite defensive team again.

[HazeGray]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

Yes. Obviously there is a needed focus and effort commitment from the players. However as mentioned, Pop no longer has the same commitment towards defense. At this point, we all know Bonner and Blair are defensive liabilities yet they still get significant minutes.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

No. Although I believe (hope) that more attention will be placed on defense as the playoffs near.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

No. We need to get above average muy pronto.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Yes. But we have to be able to win UGLY at least twice in the playoffs in order to seriously contend.

[therealtruth]

1. Parker-Manu-KL-TD-TS

Not quite the same as our championship lineups but as close as it gets with KL taking the Bowen role and TS taking the Oberto/Mohammed role.

2. I think Pop needs to be more balanced.

3. No. Unless they can guarantee they'll shoot lights out every game. Your defense has to be good enough to make up for the nights you don't shoot that well.

4. No. They've got to show some defensive improvement and get more easy baskets and low post scoring. The Phoenix Suns were better offensively and never did it.

[therealtruth]

The spurs one solid big who can block shot and defend the post well from being an elite defensive team again.

Splitter and Duncan both do that.

[therealtruth]

For comparison sakes, here are a few comparable teams to the Spurs, in the Duncan era..

2007 Suns: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..the Suns lost to a defensively elite Spurs team..however, the Suns were the 2nd best team in the NBA, that season, and they could have potentially won, if the suspensions played out differently..

2006 Mavs: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..beat a Spurs team that was arguably the best team in the NBA that year, and a defensive-oriented team..lost in the Finals, controversially, to a Heat team led by a historic superstar performance..

2003 Mavs: 1st offensively, 9th defensively..lost to a defensive juggernaut in the Spurs, although Dirk missed most of the series, giving them virtually no chance..the league was weak, that year, worse than this current season..

From what I see offense will give you a chance. But all those teams lost to teams that were better than them defensively. To be an NBA champion you probably need to be at least top 8 defensively.

Also in 2006 I don't think Pop played the same lineups that were responsible for the top defensive rating against the Mavs.

[mingus]

Great offensive teams can win championships. The Suns in 07 would have done it if not for stupidity. Kings beat Lakers in 04 without Horry's buzzer beater and dubious officiating. Both teams had homecourt. I think homecourt plays a huge role for offensive teams. Without it, the Spurs have no more than a slight shot. With it, they have as good a shot as anyone. I think we'll need homecourt against any top team in the NBA except Thunder to win a 7 game series. We're not beating Lakers, Heat, Bulls w/o homecourt.

[ace3g]

Spurs lead league with few fouls

The Spurs are on the verge of some unique NBA history, if they can maintain their current pace in avoiding a disqualification by their players.

Coach Gregg Popovich’s team commits fewer fouls than any other team and hasn’t had a player foul out of a game all season long.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/03/28/spurs-lead-league-with-few-fouls/

[SA210]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

I believe it starts at the top. Obviously we don't have Drob and Bruce, but wtf is wrong with Pop that he can't still have a defensive mentality? If he still coached defense first we would improve a good amount. To the Bruce days, no, but way better than we are now. It's starts with the coach.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?
NO!

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

Yes, but it would take a bunch of luck, taking the chance and hoping that we'd face a team where defense doesn't matter. I don't like playing those odds. Why not just play frickin D and hold that edge?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Same as 4. Basically hoping for luck that we'd not face certain teams. That's not a winning strategy with great odds. Possible, but stupid.

:pop::pctoss

[roycrikside]

Pop and Tim Duncan have had some interesting quotes lately that allow us to hear their updated view of Spurs Basketball. As we all know, the Spurs of yesteryear relied on an elite defense and a precision offense to win ballgames and championships. These days, San Antonio mostly wins with its offense, while their defense is average at best.

Although it's become obvious that Pop no longer stresses defense nearly as much anymore, we hadn't really ever heard it out of the horses' mouths.

First, here's a paraphrase of what Duncan said after the Suns game: "In today's NBA, you can't just count on holding the other team to under 80 points -- you have to be able to score. And we think we can do that."

Here's the actual quote from Pop after tonight's game against the Kings: "We spend more time on offense these days because our defense won't be as good as it used to be in the past -- it just won't. So we gotta pick it up somewhere."

This shouldn't come as a shocking revelation to any Spurs fans but it is notable that the Spurs have officially changed their focus as a team. I have some questions that I'm still debating in my own head and I'm interested in the opinions of the citizens of SpursTalk.

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?



Thank you in advance for your time.

1. No. They don't have anyone on their roster as good as Bowen was on the perimeter, Manu and Tony aren't as good defensively as they were in their primes, and Tim has slipped considerably from his prime, even though he's still well above average. Even a Tim-Tiago-Leonard-Ginobili-Parker lineup wouldn't be as consistently good defensively as some of the lineups the Bulls and 76ers put on the floor on a regular basis.

2. I don't think he's really focusing on anything, tbh. In this post-lockout season there's hardly any practices at all. He's just trying to keep guys fresh and healthy and pretty much throwing shit on a wall and seeing what sticks. But yeah, almost everyone on the roster is better offensively than defensively.

3. No. I don't think you need to be elite defensively to win, but at least above average, with flashes of elite in stretches, and that's assuming you're elite offensively.

4. I think it's unrealistic to expect the big three to all play well simultaneously for four straight playoff series, so no it's not realistic. At some point they'll need to get stops.

However, I do think we have to accept the new paradigm in Spurs basketball. Bowen isn't walking through that door, and neither is Horry or Robinson or 2003 Timmy. No, we don't have to hold teams to 85 to win anymore, but at the same time, it's unrealistic to expect us to score 115 in the playoffs every night. I think the magic number is 95. If we hold the other team to 95 or less and lose, it's the offense's fault. If we give up over 96 and lose, it's the defense's fault.

[Spursfanfromafar]

For comparison sakes, here are a few comparable teams to the Spurs, in the Duncan era..

2007 Suns: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..the Suns lost to a defensively elite Spurs team..however, the Suns were the 2nd best team in the NBA, that season, and they could have potentially won, if the suspensions played out differently..

2006 Mavs: 1st offensively, 13th defensively..beat a Spurs team that was arguably the best team in the NBA that year, and a defensive-oriented team..lost in the Finals, controversially, to a Heat team led by a historic superstar performance..

2003 Mavs: 1st offensively, 9th defensively..lost to a defensive juggernaut in the Spurs, although Dirk missed most of the series, giving them virtually no chance..the league was weak, that year, worse than this current season..

Just to expand upon this -

The closest (and somewhat close) teams that had such positions on offense and defense in the regular season (Spurs are ranked 3 and 12 respectively this season so far) and won a championship are -

Lakers (2000-01) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 21
Lakers (1979-80) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 9
Lakers (1987-88) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 9
Lakers (1981-82) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 10
Bulls (1990-91) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (1984-85) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (1986-87) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (2001-02) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 7
Bulls (1992-93) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 7
Rockets (1994-95) - Offensive Ranking 7, Defensive Ranking 12
Heat (2005-06) - Offensive Ranking 7, Defensive Ranking 10
Mavs (2010-11) - Offensive Ranking 8, Defensive Ranking 8
Bullets (1977-78) - Offensive Ranking 10, Defensive Ranking 9

I did this exercise only till 1978 (retrospectively).

In a nutshell, the Showtime Lakers and the Kobe-Shaq era was the only teams that managed to win despite a just above average (or below average in the case of 00-01 team) defense (atleast in the regular season).

[HarlemHeat37]

To be fair, that 2001 Lakers team was by far the best defensive team in the playoffs, that year..

They coasted during the regular season, particularly Shaq..

[therealtruth]

The Spurs must have some sort of record. It seems like every other game someone on the other team is getting a career or season high.

[TheSkeptic]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?



Thank you in advance for your time.

1. Not defense-first old style Spurs basketball, but at the very least I think the tools are there to be in the top 10. Top 8 would be ideal because I think that combined with the offense would be enough to go far in the playoffs.

The offense would be able to carry them more often than not but if shots don't fall and/or they need stops the defense would be able to keep them in games and occasionally win a few.

2. Yes and no. It makes sense to go for offense in order to make up for the fact that they're not elite defensively anymore. Pop has gone overboard. However, if that's the stance he's taking, then his decisions make sense even if that means the team probably isn't going to win it all this year as a result.

3. Sure with the help of some convenient injuries, a bit of officiating, lucky breaks, and a hot streak.

4. Can they? Sure if they face someone like New York or Orlando in the NBA finals.

Since I fully expect one of Chicago or Miami to come out of the East, however, if the Spurs made it that far I'd expect them to lose in about 6 if this is the stance they're taking.

Hoping for a long-shot upset and for favourable match-ups is just setting the team up to fail imo.

[pookenstein]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

I doubt that we can become as good defensively as we have been in the Robinson/Duncan days, but I think with the current roster we can put some pretty good defensive lineups together:

1. Small-Ball: TP--MG--KL--SJ--TD
2. Tall-Ball: TP--MG--KL--TD--TS

In both lineups you can replace Manu with Green if you want, also Kawhi and Jax can change positions and either one could be replaced with Diaw on PF.
Kawhi can be replaced with Jax in the Tall-Ball lineup.


Maybe still not the best defensive Squad in the leageu, but an elite one if you ask me.

[TheSkeptic]

The Spurs must have some sort of record. It seems like every other game someone on the other team is getting a career or season high.

Ugh. I know.

If that happens a few times it's understandable but at this stage I have to say that the Spurs' defense is the common factor here.

I'm not asking for 2003 level defense, but I really don't see this team winning it all if something doesn't change on that front.

[SpursIndonesia]

This Spurs team is kinda like the Kings of early 2000's, somewhat. The offense is very good, and decent defensively (especially as a team). If only those Kings weren't so mentally challenged and the zebras intervention + Horry's heroic, i think it would have been the first precedence of good offense + decent defense winning the championship.

[Rapper]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?



Thank you in advance for your time.

1 First of all. i really don't think they have any tool to become an elite defensive team like what they used to be. But most importantly, the spurs do not need to be an elite defensive team this season it is because they got so many weapons on offense which are better than most of the team in NBA.

2 Yes I do agree with Pop 's decision because the fact is that we did win a lot of games.

3 Hypothetically, can not. but for this short season. yes we can.

4 Certainly.

PS:timvp, actually our defense is not that average compare to most of the teams

[Redshadows]

The 2007-2008 playoffs against the Lakers changed Pop's mind, I thought.

[Manufan909]

There's a reason I said that I don't think you can be an elite defensive team without the patience of older players. It's got a lot to do with keeping that focus for a whole game. This team doesn't have it.

Young players like, say, Danny Green. They know Pop wants defense, and they just have to try and make something happen. They want steals, they want blocks, they want a perfectly-timed leap into a passing lanes. Older players like, say, Bowen. They know that what they want is to make nothing happen. It's not sexy, and it takes patience and unwavering focus. It's just my opinion, but I don't think you can get that from the younger guys.

That reminds me of an old joke. I shouldn't, but I will. Then lights out.

An old bull and a young bull are standing on a hill, looking down at a field of cows. The young bull turns to the old one and says, "Hey... let's run down this hill and catch one of those cows and **** her. The old bull turns to him and says, "No... let's walk down the hill and **** ALL of them."

We've got too many young bulls to be an elite defensive team.

I would say Manu, Tim, Tony, Jackson, Diaw, Kawhi, and Splitter are all "old bulls", so the Spurs should be good on that front. Great joke.:lol



I'm rewatching the game. It'll be a few hours. Don't wait up, tbh.
Every time you get bullshit, whiny posts like that, you should take off for half an hour to do whatever and ponder how much you've spoiled ST over the years.

:flag:

[Manufan909]

dp

[benefactor]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

No. As others have said the personnel it took to be that type of team is long gone and irreplaceable. However, the upgrades on the perimeter and being able to keep a 7 footer on the floor at all times should allow them to at least be a decent defensive team. The player that was traded was replaced with a player that is much better defensively. The player that was drafted is a big contributor and he's the best defender on the team. Splitter...when in shape and in rhythm has show to be a good paint defender. Diaw has shown himself to be an above average defender. They all seem to do it willingly because being on the Spurs still means defense and they know that.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

To a degree, yes...for two reasons. First, they cannot just rely on the big three to make all the plays on offense as we have seen in years past. Parker is the only one of them left that can maintain an elite offensive level throughout the whole game while still playing big minutes. They need somewhat significant contributions from several of the role players to get wins...which brings me to the second reason. The Spurs probably have the best set of offensive role players that they have ever had in the Duncan era. All these role players have various strengths that can be utilized and they can cause mismatches with other teams role players, as most teams in the league cannot roll out a bench as good as the Spurs. Knowing these role players contributions will be needed in order to win, I'm sure Pop has had to spend a lot more time working with them on the offensive end to get the most out of them. Offensive chemistry takes a lot more time to develop than defensive chemistry...and the Spurs have a lot of new(and offensively effective) players to integrate.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

I think so...and especially this season. I know for sure a team like that can win the West as there are no real dominant defensive teams in the West. Tbh, I don't see a team in the league this season that is a clear cut favorite to win it all. Each are flawed in their own ways and those flaws could cost that team in the playoffs. The Spurs are no different.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Offense first? No. They need to continue to play lineups that can be effective on both ends. The good thing is that they have the personnel to do that. As I said above, the Spurs have acquired rotation level role players that are willing defenders and good enough at it to get the job done. So while offense may be stressed more, there is no excuse to not play defense as players like Leonard, Jackson, Green, Splitter and Diaw all seem to play defense without being harped on by Pop.

All in all Spurs defense is going to come down to two things...the recognizing of mismatches and the ability to come up with stops when necessary. Last night Bonner didn't play because he was a mismatch. This type of mentality needs to carry over into the playoffs. This team has also shown the ability to shut down teams in stretches and then play well enough offensively and defensively after that to hold onto leads and get wins. Producing offense and defense at key times will be the key element to winning it all this season.

[MmP]

I was just thinking the other day that Pop stressing less importance on Defence might be an actual election after all. Reading Tim's quote might support it, don't you think?
I think that to be an elite defense team you need bigs who can guard. How many of those are available? Or not even 'available', let's say per team. How many teams have any of those?
After all, it's Pop the guy has been around fo years, he gotta know what's he's doing. Let's trust him.

How good was Dallas D last year?
They say this year the thing is wide open for anybody who takes the championship. So there's nobody out there that's a lock, I guess that's why Pop didnt go crazy for becoming a good D team

[Obstructed_View]

Robinson + Bowen >>>>> Diaw + Leonard + Jack >>>>>>> Bonner + Bogans.

The Spurs won't be able to play 48 minutes of shut down defense like they used to, but they at least have the players to do it on occasion now. This defense is better than it's been since the last championship.

After 2007, Pop seemed to make a change where he didn't want the Spurs to make any "risky" plays on defense, which meant they never forced steals and never ran and got easy baskets. The last two years they've done more of both and their offensive numbers have gone through the roof.

[Penya]

In 24 games with a five-point spread or less under five minutes, three Spurs have a defensive efficiency under 90. That's a quite impressive stat, tbh.
If Spurs can keep up that level by playoffs time (decreasing Blair's playing time and rising a bit the overall intensity), I like our chances to win it all.

[T Park]

If OV and Harlem are positive, then so am i about the spurs chances.

[spectator]

tbh, point differential is a greater predictor of championship success than great defense. while teams with great defense / average offense have a slightly better chance of winning a title than teams with average defense / great offense (i read an article on this a long time ago on bb reference), our point differential - in the most competitive conference and division - shows that we can hold some hopes of winning the title this year.

let's hope everyone is healthy for the end run.

[spectator]

tbh, point differential is a greater predictor of championship success than great defense. while teams with great defense / average offense have a slightly better chance of winning a title than teams with average defense / great offense (i read an article on this a long time ago on bb reference), our point differential - in the most competitive conference and division - shows that we can hold some hopes of winning the title this year.

let's hope everyone is healthy for the end run.

[spectator]

wth? double post?

[GSH]

Just to expand upon this -

The closest (and somewhat close) teams that had such positions on offense and defense in the regular season (Spurs are ranked 3 and 12 respectively this season so far) and won a championship are -

Lakers (2000-01) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 21
Lakers (1979-80) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 9
Lakers (1987-88) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 9
Lakers (1981-82) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 10
Bulls (1990-91) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (1984-85) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (1986-87) - Offensive Ranking 1, Defensive Ranking 7
Lakers (2001-02) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 7
Bulls (1992-93) - Offensive Ranking 2, Defensive Ranking 7
Rockets (1994-95) - Offensive Ranking 7, Defensive Ranking 12
Heat (2005-06) - Offensive Ranking 7, Defensive Ranking 10
Mavs (2010-11) - Offensive Ranking 8, Defensive Ranking 8
Bullets (1977-78) - Offensive Ranking 10, Defensive Ranking 9

I did this exercise only till 1978 (retrospectively).

In a nutshell, the Showtime Lakers and the Kobe-Shaq era was the only teams that managed to win despite a just above average (or below average in the case of 00-01 team) defense (atleast in the regular season).


That, my friend, is good work.

http://www.ctssunglasseswholesale.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/david-caruso-csi-miami.jpg

[SpurYank]

Originally Posted by timvp
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Answers:
1. More then ever! If they aren't, today, it is because of Pop. This team is more athletic, has better scorers, is more focused, is deeper, and believes in Pop more than any other previous teams we've had in the past. IMHO, Pop realizes there are 7 footers in the league who shoot, dribble, and score like guards (think Love, Durant, Lebron, etc.). Unless your defensive-minded team is all 7 footers as well, we simply have to outscore them.

2. Absolutely! And it is paying off.

3. Probably not. We have to raise our game on all fronts. Here, because of Pop's theory and philosophy of "winning basketball" (i.e., resting players, etc.) we have an advantage over all other less-than-eperienced coaches. Pop prepares for the playoffs in November.

4. I think we are getting there. All of us see continuing "flashes" of a championship team with each game the Spurs play. Others are seeing it, too. We can downplay Shaq, Barkeley, and others all we want, but they see a formidable team in this year's version of the S.A., Spurs.

[dunkman]

They 99, 03 and 05 Spurs teams were able to force all the teams they played to play at their pace and style.

However, in 07 the Suns imposed their offensive style, and the Spurs were unable to stop them. The Spurs had to outscore the Suns also Horry's cheap shot on Nash helped to get Amare and Diaw suspended for one game. Should have the Suns advanced that year, they would have won that championship.

Another example are the 2010 Lakers. Once again, the Suns were able to impose their style, but the Lakers had elite offense too and were able to outscore them. In the finals, the C's imposed their defensive style but the Lakers were great defensive team too. When Perkins went down in game 6 the C's were unable to make adjustments on the fly and for game 7 the Lakers had slightly better defense.

So, I think that the Spurs need to play both elite offense and elite defense to be able to win it all. But depends on the playoffs and finals matchups, perhaps it could be done with offense only. However, the Heat and the Bulls are great defensive teams.

[wildbill2u]

Our new Paradigm--Defense in Depth

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

Yes. While we don't have the individual player that can be considered a consistent "lock down defender" the defense is rounding out nicely. Remember our ranking is based on the entire season and with all the injuries and new players the development of a defensive personality of this team is still in transition--and getting better as new players have been added, Kwahi improves almost game-to-game.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

Yes. On one hand he's had to face the fact that the league has changed. Rules and refs calls are harder on the defense because the league wants the excitement value of offensive basketball.

Secondly, the team personnel has changed with Tim and maybe Manu a step slower, no All defensive player like Bowen, and a raft of good shooters.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

Hypothetically yes. In actuality yes. One poster looked it up and found some teams that had won without being in the top five defensively.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Yes. We might well come up in a championship series with another team that has an high rating for its offense. There is no telling what matchup we could have in a Championship series.

We are seeing an evolution in the Spurs which began in 2009. Call it two-platoon basketball which means using your depth to win games. It's been a long time since you saw our Big 3 or any starting player consistently play the traditional 35 minutes per game that starters traditionally demanded. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision by Pop or just the way the ball bounced with the personnel available, but he has been able to sell it to the players without injuring egos.

In some ways, running in waves of players (who on other teams and would be nailed to the bench except in garbage time) functions as a form of defense, wearing down the opposition. By the fourth quarter the other team's players who play big minutes are running out of gas, a step slower on their defensive rotations and rebounding and with legs that can't elevate for their jumpers.

Let's call this new paradigm "Defense in Depth". In war a military that doesn't have the abillity to withstand an assault with an impregnable front line of defense will use the tactic of 'defense in depth' to let the opponent wear itself out as the defenders bend but don't break. Consciously or not, I think Pop has come round to this concept for our defense and is cannily using the skill sets of the personnel available. It's not a 'stop them cold' defensive concept anymore, but 'hold 'em and then attack their weak points"

1. All our players are kept fresh, eager, and can go 'all out' on both offense and defense without subconsciously pacing themselves. No player can go 'all out' for 35-40 minutes in today's faster paced NBA. Teams that rely on star players to play that many minutes will have trouble matching up with the Spurs.

2. Our best players are ready to pick up the pace in the 4th quarter at the same time that the other team's best players are lagging.

3. Pop has the luxury of matching up players as the game goes on. If one player can't go then he can try another one with confidence that the result won't be a fiasco in most cases.

4. Teams that out-rebound another team have an advantage and usually win. Keeping fresh aggressive players on the floor at all times tends to help rebounding at both ends. Do you notice a pick-up in our rebounding at the end of games? Aren't we reboundning better as a team lately as injured players return, new additions help, and our youngsters develop more confidence and skill with more playing time?

[wildbill2u]

Our new Paradigm--Defense in Depth

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

Yes. While we don't have the individual player that can be considered a consistent "lock down defender" the defense is rounding out nicely. Remember our ranking is based on the entire season and with all the injuries and new players the development of a defensive personality of this team is still in transition--and getting better as new players have been added, Kwahi improves almost game-to-game.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

Yes. On one hand he's had to face the fact that the league has changed. Rules and refs calls are harder on the defense because the league wants the excitement value of offensive basketball.

Secondly, the team personnel has changed with Tim and maybe Manu a step slower, no All defensive player like Bowen, and a raft of good shooters.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

Hypothetically yes. In actuality yes. One poster looked it up and found some teams that had won without being in the top five defensively.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Yes. We might well come up in a championship series with another team that has an high rating for its offense. There is no telling what matchup we could have in a Championship series.

We are seeing an evolution in the Spurs which began in 2009. Call it two-platoon basketball which means using your depth to win games. It's been a long time since you saw our Big 3 or any starting player consistently play the traditional 35 minutes per game that starters traditionally demanded. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision by Pop or just the way the ball bounced with the personnel available, but he has been able to sell it to the players without injuring egos.

In some ways, running in waves of players (who on other teams and would be nailed to the bench except in garbage time) functions as a form of defense, wearing down the opposition. By the fourth quarter the other team's players who play big minutes are running out of gas, a step slower on their defensive rotations and rebounding and with legs that can't elevate for their jumpers.

Let's call this new paradigm "Defense in Depth". In war a military that doesn't have the abillity to withstand an assault with an impregnable front line of defense will use the tactic of 'defense in depth' to let the opponent wear itself out as the defenders bend but don't break. Consciously or not, I think Pop has come round to this concept for our defense and is cannily using the skill sets of the personnel available. It's not a 'stop them cold' defensive concept anymore, but 'hold 'em and then attack their weak points"

1. All our players are kept fresh, eager, and can go 'all out' on both offense and defense without subconsciously pacing themselves. No player can go 'all out' for 35-40 minutes in today's faster paced NBA. Teams that rely on star players to play that many minutes will have trouble matching up with the Spurs.

2. Our best players are ready to pick up the pace in the 4th quarter at the same time that the other team's best players are lagging.

3. Pop has the luxury of matching up players as the game goes on. If one player can't go then he can try another one with confidence that the result won't be a fiasco in most cases.

4. Teams that out-rebound another team have an advantage and usually win. Keeping fresh aggressive players on the floor at all times tends to help rebounding at both ends. Do you notice a pick-up in our rebounding at the end of games? Aren't we reboundning better as a team lately as injured players return, new additions help, and our youngsters develop more confidence and skill with more playing time?

[EVAY]

Pop and Tim Duncan have had some interesting quotes lately that allow us to hear their updated view of Spurs Basketball. As we all know, the Spurs of yesteryear relied on an elite defense and a precision offense to win.

First, here's a paraphrase of what Duncan said after the Suns game: "In today's NBA, you can't just count on holding the other team to under 80 points -- you have to be able to score. And we think we can do that."

Here's the actual quote from Pop after tonight's game against the Kings: "We spend more time on offense these days because our defense won't be as good as it used to be in the past -- it just won't. So we gotta pick it up somewhere."

I have some questions that I'm still debating in my own head and I'm interested in the opinions of the citizens of SpursTalk.

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?



Thank you in advance for your time.

First, I don't think either Tim or Pop are saying "we aren't going to focus on defense." I took them to be saying that it wouldn't be like it used to be.

Moreover, I take hit to reflect the reality that the NBA rules have changed over the last 10 years and they have done so much more to allow freer flowing offensive moves. For example, there used to be a lot more hand checking on perimeter players than is allowed now, the lack of charge being called unless the defender is outside of a specific (small) area, etc. etc.

When the Spurs were winning their earliest championships, defense almost always won the series, and the entire NBA game was more defense-oriented. As the league offices became more and more market oriented and big-name super-star oriented, the less the game became about "old time fundamentals like defense" and more about flashier-style, up-tempo games. This style is attractive to a larger and less 'basketball-savvy' audience the is the defense-first-fundamental-basketball-type of play.

So from a marketing standpoint, the NBA has made its choice and made its rules consistent with the product it wants to sell. The spurs were one of the last teams to buy into the marketing approach, and everybody in the league was calling the Spurs 'boring' to watch. When the Spurs were in the playoffs, tv watching went down. Hell, even the spurs players found it boring.

So, with that rationale in mind:

1. No. For the reason that so many have said here...our bigs are not big enough or strong enough or mobile enough or whatever you want to say. We can do it for short periods of time like we did last night in the last five minutes, and we can do it against teams that do not rely on a big post presence, but let's face it, the days of "send your opponent into David and Tim and let them block their shots" are long gone and aren't coming back. This reality puts much more emphasis on our perimeter defenders than there used to be. We haven't figured that out yet. Now, in order to stop perimeter folks we have to get in to the passing lanes more, which we have started to do, or we have to be really good on help defense if the opposing players get past our initial perimeter defense. We have really sucked on help defense this year, and I have to say (although I'll get creamed for it)...Tim has failed miserably in this regard. For the last few games he has done little more than watch guards go past him to the basket.

Last night when we did some double-teaming and the like and got some defensive stops (finally), it was due to our perimeter veterans...not our interior defense.

So, we can do it for (relatively) short periods, or in a different kind of defense than we used to have, but we cannot be the "old Spurs" defense, because we should foul out and or get killed trying to do something we cannot accomplish anymore.

2.Yes, because he has no choice but to make that decision given the team's composition, the league's focus, the rule changes, and the shortened season this season which does not allow for the kind of defensive training that would be required to develop a first-tier defensive squad from these youngsters.

3. Maybe this year, more than any other...because it is so shortened, and because no one has had the time to develop much of anything else. Those in the best position will be those who know each other for the longest, and have defense together in the past.

4. Maybe...this year...not normally.

[therealtruth]

They 99, 03 and 05 Spurs teams were able to force all the teams they played to play at their pace and style.

However, in 07 the Suns imposed their offensive style, and the Spurs were unable to stop them. The Spurs had to outscore the Suns also Horry's cheap shot on Nash helped to get Amare and Diaw suspended for one game. Should have the Suns advanced that year, they would have won that championship.

Another example are the 2010 Lakers. Once again, the Suns were able to impose their style, but the Lakers had elite offense too and were able to outscore them. In the finals, the C's imposed their defensive style but the Lakers were great defensive team too. When Perkins went down in game 6 the C's were unable to make adjustments on the fly and for game 7 the Lakers had slightly better defense.

So, I think that the Spurs need to play both elite offense and elite defense to be able to win it all. But depends on the playoffs and finals matchups, perhaps it could be done with offense only. However, the Heat and the Bulls are great defensive teams.

The Spurs would never have won game 5 against the Suns in '07 without relying on their defense. The Suns came out strong trying to blow them out.

Against great defensive teams the Spurs are going to have to rely on their defense more.

[Spurs Brazil]

1. Not elite but good with Tiago/TD/Leonard or Jax/Manu and TP

2. Yes, not much you can do when you don't have the players; too much liability on D with Blair, Bonner and Neal.

3. I don't think average is enough. They have to be good

4. Agree with benefactor.

[roycrikside]

The player that was traded was replaced with a player that is much better defensively. The player that was drafted is a big contributor and he's the best defender on the team.

While it's a popular notion that Leonard is already a superb defender because he's young and quick and athletic -- he simply looks like he should be one -- there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests that he is one atm, and L.J. would back this up. The Spurs have been more effective defensively with Stephen Jackson (small sample size though), with Danny Green, even with RJ or James Anderson. Leonard's best asset has been his rebounding on both ends and his scoring in the paint, tbh.



2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

Offensive chemistry takes a lot more time to develop than defensive chemistry...and the Spurs have a lot of new(and offensively effective) players to integrate.

Complete bunk you just made up. Most successful offensive plays in the NBA require good execution by just two or three players (i.e. the Spurs pick-and-roll). Good defense needs all five guys working well on a string. There are countless interviews where Spurs players state that Pop's defensive playbook is far thicker than his offensive one and that it takes at least a year to understand where to be at all times on defense. Offensively, the adjustment for players has been much easier and the most common problem isn't positioning but rather not being over tentative and deferring too much when playing with Top-25 players and certain future HOFers like Tim, Tony and Manu.



Tbh, I don't see a team in the league this season that is a clear cut favorite to win it all. Each are flawed in their own ways and those flaws could cost that team in the playoffs. The Spurs are no different.

Tough to see many flaws in Chicago or Miami. The Bulls are 4th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency. The Heat are 3rd in offensive efficiency and 4th in defensive efficiency. Either one would be more than a handful for us, especially if they have home court advantage. Winning a 'chip against either would be the most impressive accomplishment in Spurs history, imo, even more so than beating Detroit in '05.



So while offense may be stressed more, there is no excuse to not play defense as players like Leonard, Jackson, Green, Splitter and Diaw all seem to play defense without being harped on by Pop. All in all Spurs defense is going to come down to two things...the recognizing of mismatches and the ability to come up with stops when necessary. Last night Bonner didn't play because he was a mismatch.

Again, the typical ST bias against Bonner where you trust your lying eyes over all statistical evidence. Not only has he been one of the team's most consistent defenders all season long, but he's one of the best post-up defenders in the league. Bonner's biggest fault, besides his playoff history, is that he doesn't look the part (opposite of Leonard, basically). Like Billy Beane says, "Are we trying to sell jeans here or win games?"

He was benched against the Kings just to get rest, it had nothing to do about matchups. Bonner's specializes against interior scorers and his weakness is actually guarding people similar to him, guys who can space the floor and shoot threes. The Kings don't have stretch fours.

If you worry about match-ups as far as who plays and who doesn't, then Blair and Neal would almost never play. :lol

Yeah, after seeing this post I can see why you mostly just type gay slurs. When you actually try to provide basketball analysis, you're just talking out of your ass. :lmao

[dunkman]

The Spurs would never have won game 5 against the Suns in '07 without relying on their defense. The Suns came out strong trying to blow them out.

Against great defensive teams the Spurs are going to have to rely on their defense more.

The game 5 was the only one played at slow pace favoured by the Spurs and that was because Diaw and Amare were suspended. In game 4 Horry hip checked Nash and Amare and Diaw stepped the court from the bench, which is an automatic 1 game suspension. I think that the Spurs could have won that series anyway, perhaps in 7 games.

But the point is that the Spurs wouldn't have survived that series if they weren't able to outscore the Suns. Against some matchups, they need great offense and perhaps this year they can force the opponents to play at their pace.

Bowen was very important to set the defensive style, Duncan was also playing better defense, he's past his prime. Right now it seems that Duncan and Splitter can't play well, because they aren't effective on offense.

The Spurs can improve on defense, with the new players. S-Jax, Diaw and Mills will probably help there.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

There are several types of defense-oriented styles that a team can run:

1. Individual lock down defense -which is very difficult to do now considering the rules the NBA has put in place in the early to mid 2000's. I thought Memphis did a good job with Battier and Allen on the perimeter and Randolph/Gasol on the interior. Boston had been here couple of years ago.

2. College style perimeter or trap style defense - again very difficult to do in the NBA with elite ball handlers. Although, it can be done once in a while. Maybe the Miami Heat is best example.

3. Defense at the rim - as a team you can press on the perimeter as defensive shot blocking is premier. Not too many teams can do this but I'd say Bulls and OKC.

4. Zone oriented team. This is a team that may not have great shot blocking or lock down defenders on the perimeter but has some shot blocking and athleticism. This team makes good rotations and covers areas in order to deny open looks. I think this is the style of defense the Spurs utilize now. They have smart players that understand their assignments, can press somewhat on the perimeter, go for some steals and realize that their teammates can cover when need be. Finally they have some shot blocking presence in the middle. I think this can be good enough to beat most teams.

Other than Bulls, Heat, and OKC I dont see other teams that have a greater defensive scheme than Spurs do. Im good with Spurs making it to WCF or NBA Finals.

[therealtruth]

The game 5 was the only one played at slow pace favoured by the Spurs and that was because Diaw and Amare were suspended. In game 4 Horry hip checked Nash and Amare and Diaw stepped the court from the bench, which is an automatic 1 game suspension. I think that the Spurs could have won that series anyway, perhaps in 7 games.

But the point is that the Spurs wouldn't have survived that series if they weren't able to outscore the Suns. Against some matchups, they need great offense and perhaps this year they can force the opponents to play at their pace.

Bowen was very important to set the defensive style, Duncan was also playing better defense, he's past his prime. Right now it seems that Duncan and Splitter can't play well, because they aren't effective on offense.

The Spurs can improve on defense, with the new players. S-Jax, Diaw and Mills will probably help there.

If Blair and Duncan can coexist I don't see why Splitter and Duncan can't. At the least Splitter is a better Blair that can actually finish and play better defense.

[HarlemHeat37]

Tough to see many flaws in Chicago or Miami. The Bulls are 4th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency. The Heat are 3rd in offensive efficiency and 4th in defensive efficiency. Either one would be more than a handful for us, especially if they have home court advantage. Winning a 'chip against either would be the most impressive accomplishment in Spurs history, imo, even more so than beating Detroit in '05.

While I don't believe the Spurs can beat either Chicago or Miami in a series, I completely disagree that neither team has evident flaws..I watch virtually every Heat game, btw, I'm not speaking without knowledge of their situation..

The Bulls offense has made a dramatic improvement from last year, probably attributed to chemistry, but they will face the same problem in this year's playoffs, as they did last year..their 2nd and 3rd options can't consistently create offense for themselves, in the playoffs, forcing an overreliance on Rose..

Miami's bench is very inconsistent, their bigs are still weak, and their coach is running Lebron into the ground..





Again, the typical ST bias against Bonner where you trust your lying eyes over all statistical evidence. Not only has he been one of the team's most consistent defenders all season long, but he's one of the best post-up defenders in the league. Bonner's biggest fault, besides his playoff history, is that he doesn't look the part (opposite of Leonard, basically). Like Billy Beane says, "Are we trying to sell jeans here or win games?"

He was benched against the Kings just to get rest, it had nothing to do about matchups. Bonner's specializes against interior scorers and his weakness is actually guarding people similar to him, guys who can space the floor and shoot threes. The Kings don't have stretch fours.

Bonner is currently rated as a premiere post defender, because he generally guards the inferior post players..if he went up against the same competition as Duncan, Splitter and Diaw(in the future), he would more than likely rank below average IMO..I'm not a Bonner hater, btw, I've defended him as much as most pro-Bonner posters here, and I certainly prefer him over Blair..

This is just an assumption, I'd have to look it up, but I'm fairly certain that Bonner's numbers are skewed, because opposing teams will generally iso/post his matchup against him, just out of principal, even when the opposing player isn't a standout iso or post player..I could be wrong, but I'd be interested in researching it, when I'm not on my phone..

He's still a playoff choker, and he's still at a physical disadvantage, when facing good post players..

[rascal]

Spurs basketball existed before both Pop and Duncan.

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

Cotton ball!

[DMC]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
No, primarily because Tim Duncan cannot defend at that level and the team's defense is anchored by Tim.


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

Of course. If anyone answers "No" to the first question, how can they think we shouldn't approach from the other side? Otherwise you are saying we are done.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

If the stars align perfectly, sure.


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

No. Do they have an offense first mentality or do they have a better offensive than defense? We will never be as good offensively as the Suns were, and they were pretty damn close to the show one year, but no, the old adage "defense wins championships" is still true.


Thank you in advance for your time.
No problem. :king

[Obstructed_View]

If OV and Harlem are positive, then so am i about the spurs chances.

Dude, I always start out positive. Hell, I was excited about Splitter starting next to Duncan from the day he was drafted.

[T Park]

Dude, I always start out positive. Hell, I was excited about Splitter starting next to Duncan from the day he was drafted.

If you guys are down on a squad for a certain amount of time, it perks my ears.

You both being positive about the team confirms my suspicions on the team..

I'm by far the least educated on the game, so before I c.onfirm an opinion I like to see what guys like you, timvp, solid D, and others say.

[TD 21]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

Not a chance, but they do have the personnel -- if utilized correctly -- to be a tier under that.


2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?To an extent. By '08, it was painfully obvious that they needed to. But it's still inexcusable that they haven't brought in a legit partner for Duncan, which would solve much of the defensive issues.


3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?It's possible, depending on your definition of average. Anything outside of the top 10 in efficiency and the answer is probably no, unless the offense is historically great. But as bad they've appeared to be for much of the season, they're 13th in defensive efficiency and with the improved personnel -- if they utilize it correctly -- that combined with certain guys going all out on defense and not pacing themselves in the playoffs, should have them defending at a top 10 level.


4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?Sure, but, as I just alluded to, that doesn't mean the defense won't have to improve some. Of course, they'll need some breaks along the way, just like any other championship team, but it's doable. I have a difficult time envisioning them beating either the Heat or Bulls, but I also have a difficult time imagining the big three getting back to the Finals and not winning it. It's like the Mavs last season, in that they'd know that they're probably not getting back there, so they'd feel like they couldn't afford to lose.

[benefactor]

While it's a popular notion that Leonard is already a superb defender because he's young and quick and athletic -- he simply looks like he should be one -- there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests that he is one atm, and L.J. would back this up. The Spurs have been more effective defensively with Stephen Jackson (small sample size though), with Danny Green, even with RJ or James Anderson. Leonard's best asset has been his rebounding on both ends and his scoring in the paint, tbh.



Complete bunk you just made up. Most successful offensive plays in the NBA require good execution by just two or three players (i.e. the Spurs pick-and-roll). Good defense needs all five guys working well on a string. There are countless interviews where Spurs players state that Pop's defensive playbook is far thicker than his offensive one and that it takes at least a year to understand where to be at all times on defense. Offensively, the adjustment for players has been much easier and the most common problem isn't positioning but rather not being over tentative and deferring too much when playing with Top-25 players and certain future HOFers like Tim, Tony and Manu.



Tough to see many flaws in Chicago or Miami. The Bulls are 4th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency. The Heat are 3rd in offensive efficiency and 4th in defensive efficiency. Either one would be more than a handful for us, especially if they have home court advantage. Winning a 'chip against either would be the most impressive accomplishment in Spurs history, imo, even more so than beating Detroit in '05.



Again, the typical ST bias against Bonner where you trust your lying eyes over all statistical evidence. Not only has he been one of the team's most consistent defenders all season long, but he's one of the best post-up defenders in the league. Bonner's biggest fault, besides his playoff history, is that he doesn't look the part (opposite of Leonard, basically). Like Billy Beane says, "Are we trying to sell jeans here or win games?"

He was benched against the Kings just to get rest, it had nothing to do about matchups. Bonner's specializes against interior scorers and his weakness is actually guarding people similar to him, guys who can space the floor and shoot threes. The Kings don't have stretch fours.

If you worry about match-ups as far as who plays and who doesn't, then Blair and Neal would almost never play. :lol

Yeah, after seeing this post I can see why you mostly just type gay slurs. When you actually try to provide basketball analysis, you're just talking out of your ass. :lmao
So you are trying to show me up now? Sorry...I'm not interested to writing long responses to faggots who cherry pick my posts and take things out of context. Go follow someone around who gives a fuck.

[acoelho1]

1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?

To be an elite defensive team, you need the physical bigs down low and TD is not what he used to be. However, Leonard and Green are steps in the right direction. In terms of Leonard, mark my words, he will be one of the best defensive wings in the league.

2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?

I don't agree with the premise of your question. You only have to look at the quick time outs when someone misses a defensive assignment. The difference with this team is that they play faster and are not holding the ball like the teams of the past. Trust me, Pop is still very engaged on that side of the ball and we are far from being the Suns.

Also, if we are so focused on offense, why did we pick up the defensive minded Leonard during the draft.

3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?

I see where your going with this question but I think the Spurs are improving their defense each game and should have an above average defense by playoff time. Also, don't forget that Pop doesn't always put the best defensive team on the floor so we have some flexibility in that area.

4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?

Again, being better on offense than defense doesn't mean you throw out one for the other. This team is considerably more physical and defensive minded than last year's team, which was an offensive juggernaut. Today's Spurs are a pretty damn good offense with an ever improving defense. This chapter on the demise of the Spurs defense has yet to be written and with ridding ourselves of Jefferson and adding Jackson and Diaw, things are looking up on that side of the ball.

[roycrikside]

So you are trying to show me up now? Sorry...I'm not interested to writing long responses to faggots who cherry pick my posts and take things out of context. Go follow someone around who gives a fuck.

There you go, tough guy. Stick to your strengths. :toast

[GSH]

While it's a popular notion that Leonard is already a superb defender because he's young and quick and athletic -- he simply looks like he should be one -- there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests that he is one atm, and L.J. would back this up. The Spurs have been more effective defensively with Stephen Jackson (small sample size though), with Danny Green, even with RJ or James Anderson. Leonard's best asset has been his rebounding on both ends and his scoring in the paint, tbh.

Again, the typical ST bias against Bonner where you trust your lying eyes over all statistical evidence. Not only has he been one of the team's most consistent defenders all season long, but he's one of the best post-up defenders in the league. Bonner's biggest fault, besides his playoff history, is that he doesn't look the part (opposite of Leonard, basically). Like Billy Beane says, "Are we trying to sell jeans here or win games?"

He was benched against the Kings just to get rest, it had nothing to do about matchups. Bonner's specializes against interior scorers and his weakness is actually guarding people similar to him, guys who can space the floor and shoot threes. The Kings don't have stretch fours.

Yeah, after seeing this post I can see why you mostly just type gay slurs. When you actually try to provide basketball analysis, you're just talking out of your ass. :lmao


I keep thinking this must be someone's new troll account. Surely no one could be as stupid and obnoxious as this, without trying? But noooo. Roy is the real deal.

Yes, Roy, Bonner is one of the best post defenders in the league, and he specializes against interior scorers. He's been one of the team's most consistent defenders all year, and his biggest problem is that he's white, and fans don't like that.

And yes, he was benched after only playing for less than a minute because Pop wanted to rest him. Because when Pop rests players, he always puts them in the game for 23 seconds. Except for Duncan, who he chooses to humiliate with a DNP-Old. It had nothing to do with matchups. In fact, I bet Pop was worried that Bonner matched up so well that the game would be a blowout, and he wanted everyone else to get some burn.

And finally, yes - benefactor posts "mostly gay slurs". In fact, he hardly ever posts anything about basketball, unlike yourself.


You make some of the biggest fucking tools on this forum look like solid citizens. Are you on any prescription medications? I could temper my disgust, if I knew that you were just some unfortunate, chemically-imbalanced basement monkey.

[roycrikside]

I keep thinking this must be someone's new troll account. Surely no one could be as stupid and obnoxious as this, without trying? But noooo. Roy is the real deal.

Yes, Roy, Bonner is one of the best post defenders in the league, and he specializes against interior scorers. He's been one of the team's most consistent defenders all year, and his biggest problem is that he's white, and fans don't like that.

And yes, he was benched after only playing for less than a minute because Pop wanted to rest him. Because when Pop rests players, he always puts them in the game for 23 seconds. Except for Duncan, who he chooses to humiliate with a DNP-Old. It had nothing to do with matchups. In fact, I bet Pop was worried that Bonner matched up so well that the game would be a blowout, and he wanted everyone else to get some burn.

And finally, yes - benefactor posts "mostly gay slurs". In fact, he hardly ever posts anything about basketball, unlike yourself.


You make some of the biggest fucking tools on this forum look like solid citizens. Are you on any prescription medications? I could temper my disgust, if I knew that you were just some unfortunate, chemically-imbalanced basement monkey.

Again, I've got numbers and stats and you've got your stupid generalities. And Pop didn't humiliate Duncan. Tim's in on the joke. You think he's so insecure that being called old by his coach of 15 years bothers him? Get over yourself.

Finally, if you're saying that Bonner was benched because of a match-up problem, you're kind of making my argument for me, guy. They scored 112 points and shot a great percentage with Bonner NOT playing. I guess they'd have scored 130 if he was in?

Go ahead, keep writing posts where you do ZERO research. Makes you look smart.