Are the Spurs too soft?..

[Malik Hairston]

Looking at the roster:

Duncan/Parker/Ginobili- Tough minded, don't back down
Splitter- Soft until provoked
Bonner- Soft
Blair- Soft and mentally weak
Diaw- Charmin soft
Jackson- Tough
Green- Soft and mentally weak
Leonard- Neutral
Neal- Soft in every facet outside of shooting
De Colo- ??

Are the Spurs too soft, tbh?..

[playblair]

......@blair being soft ......

[Beanzamillion21]

Yes.

[Malik Hairston]

Blair entered the NBA with a reputation of being a tough, interior player..he's progressively evolved into a finesse player, since he joined the Spurs..

It's not arguable that he's mentally weak, see: Twitter/Pop for example..

[Spurs4#5]

Tbh, IMHO tbh, no...tbh imo

[freetiago]

team needs more Mario Ellies/Bowens/Kevin Willis
we have talent deficient roleplayers who are young but have no athleticism
rather just get the old vets instead
keep just leonard since hes the only possible monkeyballer we got

and neal is not soft tbh par the per
hes not afraid of stepping in for charges vs guys twice his size
he just doesnt have the physical abilities to stick with nba players

[midnightpulp]

Spurs biggest weakness is that their big 2/3 just aren't as good as the other top teams. Duncan has had to summon every ounce of energy and will to put up a rather impressive season that would've been routine for him in his prime. Manu remains inconsistent and injury prone. And Tony Parker has failed to evolve from star into superstar. The Thunder's, Heat's, and Clippers' top 3 guys are better than their Spurs' counterparts. And as much as I champion depth and team play, a playoff series often comes down to having one or two players who can light it up and carry things as their teammates struggle.

[ElNono]

Most of the tougher guys get the bulk of the mins when it matters, so it mostly doesn't matter as much in the playoffs... That said, most of those guys are also old, which makes them vulnerable in other ways

[Brunodf]

Our guards are playing like shit

[Arcadian]

"soft"...what does that even mean?

[SA210]

You forgot one

Pop - soft

[Texas_Ranger]

yes and there are some pussies there too.

[Arc]

Spurs biggest weakness is that their big 2/3 just aren't as good as the other top teams. Duncan has had to summon every ounce of energy and will to put up a rather impressive season that would've been routine for him in his prime. Manu remains inconsistent and injury prone. And Tony Parker has failed to evolve from star into superstar. The Thunder's, Heat's, and Clippers' top 3 guys are better than their Spurs' counterparts. And as much as I champion depth and team play, a playoff series often comes down to having one or two players who can light it up and carry things as their teammates struggle.

disagree. our big 3 are just as good, we simply don't get the calls that these other teams do.

[Brunodf]

Spurs biggest weakness is that their big 2/3 just aren't as good as the other top teams. Duncan has had to summon every ounce of energy and will to put up a rather impressive season that would've been routine for him in his prime. Manu remains inconsistent and injury prone. And Tony Parker has failed to evolve from star into superstar. The Thunder's, Heat's, and Clippers' top 3 guys are better than their Spurs' counterparts. And as much as I champion depth and team play, a playoff series often comes down to having one or two players who can light it up and carry things as their teammates struggle.

wut? Our role players(Neal, Green, Diaw) aren't playing well on both ends, that's why we are losing, our Big 3 combined for 60 points

[BackHome]

SHARMAN SOFT

[Sean Cagney]

SHARMAN SOFT

You spelled that wrong man............. Everyone outside of Tim though is some shit tonight, soft as burger buns.

[rascal]

The Spurs have a history of filling the roster with athletically challenged players.

[timvp]

When your top three players aren't soft -- and your two small forwards aren't soft -- then your team isn't soft. The Spurs could ultimately come up short for a variety of reasons but softness isn't one.

[Russ]

If you're saying that a player who lacks explosive athletic ability is "soft," that's rather convenient.

"Soft" in any meaningful NBA parlance connotes mental weakness and, on that score, the Spurs are not soft (with one or two widely acknowledged exceptions).

[SenorSpur]

As much as I hate to admit, I'd have to say yes for several reasons. All of the reasons that I'm stating here have as much to do with their performances against teams that are superior to them in both talent and athleticism.

- This team has not been unable to impose it's will defensively against top-tier opponents. They've simply not demonstrated an ability to continously get stops when necessary.

- On the offensive side of the ball, they are forced to work too hard in order to generate buckets. As the Spurs have evolved into more of a y've relied more on the 3-ball, the fast break opportunities have seemingly dwindled.

- This team has shown a tendency to wilt against teams that are superior in both talent and athleticism. They succumb to defensive pressure by giving up too many second-chance opportunities. Because the Spurs bigs have been poor at boxing out and not sealing off opponents ability for offensive rebounds, they've allowed opponents more shots at the rim that should be allowed.

- They do not create as many turnovers as they give up. The Spurs have shown a penchant for routinely making poor decisions and throwing careless passes, which leads to runouts and easy baskets by these opponents. As a matter of fact, the number of points they've allowed off these turnovers recently has been absolutely alarming. In my mind, that's allowing the opponent to impose their will.

All that said, it just appears that in order for the Spurs to beat teams like OKC, MEM, they must play virtually flawless basketball. For a team that prides itself on precise offensive execution and superior ball movement, it seems that these traits are severely compromised when they go up against the more athletic contenders in the NBA. That's why I believe a case can be made for why this team, in some respects, can be labeled as soft. Until they can consistently correct these flaws, it will not be necessary to have these types of debates.

[lefty]

Our players are not soft

But our coach is softer than ever


Or senile

I dont know


But shit, stick to your guns and rest your players

Pop acts tough, but he is no Red Foreman

[quentin_compson]

disagree. our big 3 are just as good, we simply don't get the calls that these other teams do.

Yeah sure, that must be it ...

[Jordanobili2320]

you seem reluctant to admit that our rebounding is SOFT

[Stabula]

In my mind "soft" means being mentally weak, afraid of physical contact, afraid to shoot open shots, unable to pull down contested rebounds, and shitting all over the court in playoff situations. Blair isn't soft to me other than being mentally weak (retarded) he just all-around sucks in every single aspect other than energy. Diaw to me is clearly the softest player on the team with Splitter having worrisome bouts of softness as well. Bonner is generally a softy too but has been much more aggressive this season especially with rebounds so hats off to that.

[TD 21]

When your top three players aren't soft -- and your two small forwards aren't soft -- then your team isn't soft. The Spurs could ultimately come up short for a variety of reasons but softness isn't one.

What are you talking about? They might have the single softest group of bigs in the entire league (though I'd label Blair more neutral than soft) and this is with one of the toughest players of all time leading them.

If this isn't rectified, it's absolutely going to play a major role in them coming up short (and by short, I mean 2nd round) again. It doesn't matter whether it's at the hands of the Thunder, Grizzlies, Clippers or Lakers, they're going to get emasculated.

[skulls138]

Only Diaw's softness is pissing me off. Ive been happy with Splitter this year. Green and Neal have been a pleasant surprise since theyve been Spurs, cmon now. Blair is undersized w/out a jumpshot and Bonner just isnt the most athletic person ever but has been throwing his weight around better this year.

As for Jackson, do you really want a team full of him?

[timvp]

- This team has not been unable to impose it's will defensively against top-tier opponents. They've simply not demonstrated an ability to continously get stops when necessary. You'd have to be more specific for me to agree with this. Are you just talking about the recent Thunder game? Not many other games this season meet your description, tbh.


- On the offensive side of the ball, they are forced to work too hard in order to generate buckets. As the Spurs have evolved into more of a y've relied more on the 3-ball, the fast break opportunities have seemingly dwindled.The Spurs play at the second fastest pace in the entire NBA.


- This team has shown a tendency to wilt against teams that are superior in both talent and athleticism. They succumb to defensive pressure by giving up too many second-chance opportunities. Because the Spurs bigs have been poor at boxing out and not sealing off opponents ability for offensive rebounds, they've allowed opponents more shots at the rim that should be allowed. The Spurs have climbed to 11th in the league in defensive rebounding ... and that's with playing more than half the year without Kawhi -- who is probably only behind Duncan in terms of ability to pull down contested boards.


- They do not create as many turnovers as they give up. The Spurs have shown a penchant for routinely making poor decisions and throwing careless passes, which leads to runouts and easy baskets by these opponents. As a matter of fact, the number of points they've allowed off these turnovers recently has been absolutely alarming. In my mind, that's allowing the opponent to impose their will.The 1999 Spurs and the 2003 Spurs also turned the ball over more than their opponents. The Spurs have never forced many turnovers because Pop doesn't like his players to go after steals. I don't see this as a sign of softness, tbh.

While it's true the Spurs need to cut down on their turnovers, the reason for the uptick in turnovers so far this season has been due to the upheaval regarding the roles on the bench. The starters are barely turning it over. Once Pop settles on a rotation, the overall number should improve drastically.


All that said, it just appears that in order for the Spurs to beat teams like OKC, MEM, they must play virtually flawless basketball. For a team that prides itself on precise offensive execution and superior ball movement, it seems that these traits are severely compromised when they go up against the more athletic contenders in the NBA.

Isn't that logical though? When the Spurs are at a athletic and talent disadvantage, they have to rely on the flawlessness of how they play basketball. By what other manner do you want them to win?

And against the teams that are the most athletic and/or talented, it'll take even more flawlessness and better execution to win. That only makes sense. Back when TD and Manu were more athletic, they didn't need to be as flawless because they had more room for error. Now at this point in their careers, they have no choice but to rely on playing as perfect as possible.

I'm not following along with your line of reasoning, tbh.

[timvp]

What are you talking about? They might have the single softest group of bigs in the entire league (though I'd label Blair more neutral than soft) and this is with one of the toughest players of all time leading them.When Splitter is on the top of his game, he's not soft. Bonner and Diaw are soft but so is just about every Stretch Four in the NBA. If you employ Stretch Fours, you do so knowing you'll be trading brute strength for outside shooting. There are exceptions (Horry being the most notable to Spurs fans) but "soft" is part of the package with that skillset.

But, no, Bonner and Diaw alone can't swing the balance enough to call the whole team soft. Hell, there are many scenarios where neither will even be in the rotation against teams like Miami or OKC in the playoffs.

:lol @ the idea that a team with TD, Manu and TP is soft because two bench players are soft

[racm]

I don't get the Spurs' soft label. In fact they're tougher than last season mostly because Tiago has gotten his pussy healed, he's tougher than Pau tbh

Now Diaw OTOH...

[racm]

And the team is genuinely missing its lead hustle player. I think the OKC and/or Denver games would have turned out differently had Kawhi played.

[diego]

they're soft, not in terms of mentality or stats, but in the sense that when teams get physical and the refs look the other way, most of them pout instead of getting even. they dont stand up for each other.

It was sickening to see timmy get knocked down the other day vs OKC and not one of his teammates went to him, or to the refs, or to perkins/abaka, NOTHING, NO REACTION.

teams like memphis and OKC or even the clips this year that play physical, intentionally go after them and the only response is from duncan, manu (who play harder, or in the case of manu might give a hard foul), or pop (tech rant). I love Jax and last year I remember him being more of an enforcer, but he disappointed me big time the other night, I really thought he was going to come in and do something about that BS but he let it go. IMO, this team desperately needs to designate Jax for this or get a willis / elie type that will not look the other way when someone, be it the other team or the refs, start fucking with their teammates.

there's a reason pop had to ask for nasty on national tv. I dont think the spurs are mentally weak or quick to quit, but I do think they are pussies for allowing themselves to get pushed around without getting some payback.

[TD 21]

When Splitter is on the top of his game, he's not soft. Bonner and Diaw are soft but so is just about every Stretch Four in the NBA. If you employ Stretch Fours, you do so knowing you'll be trading brute strength for outside shooting. There are exceptions (Horry being the most notable to Spurs fans) but "soft" is part of the package with that skillset.

But, no, Bonner and Diaw alone can't swing the balance enough to call the whole team soft. Hell, there are many scenarios where neither will even be in the rotation against teams like Miami or OKC in the playoffs.

:lol @ the idea that a team with TD, Manu and TP is soft because two bench players are soft

If you have to qualify it, then he's soft. Toughness isn't shooting; it doesn't come and go. You're either tough or your not and he's not. Soft is usually part of the package with that skill set, but that doesn't excuse them being on the short list of softest bigs in the entire league (Diaw in particular).

Obviously, those two alone can't swing the balance, but them and Splitter are the most overt offenders, because of the positions they play. Collectively, the team is soft and it has been for years (as I detailed in my infamous :lol "Gutless Worms" thread). It has nothing to do with the core, but last time I checked, they only account for three players.

Barring a trade, there is no scenario where Diaw isn't in the playoff rotation, no matter who they play.

[spursnatic]

Every since the departure of Bowen I must say Yes we are too soft

[sanman53]

It's December. We will not be having the conversation in April.

[rascal]

Splitter is soft. You just wait until the playoffs he will be unplayable again like last year.

[Strategic]

Isn't that logical though? When the Spurs are at a athletic and talent disadvantage, they have to rely on the flawlessness of how they play basketball. By what other manner do you want them to win?



This might be the root of the "David Stern vs. our little world argument". Stern appears to prefer athleticism and talent. It sells! I think the Spurs rely on Skill and savvy. It doesn't always sell. The former vs. the latter. One is dependent on momentum, the other relies on execution. It's hoopin' agin ballin'!