So where has the team slipped most O or D?

[Nikos]

The Spurs have slipped on BOTH ENDS of the floor this season. Offensively they are about middle of the pack in terms of efficiency (13th so far this season). This to me is somewhat puzzling because Manu is having his best offensive season ever, Duncan is solid as usual, and although Tony hasn't been 100% he has still been just as focal to the offense as Manu and Duncan.

Before it was Duncan, an aging Drob and standstill shooters, and that alone lead to a Top 10 offense or better. (Think 2002). Are solid role players really any better than having Manu, Tony, and inferior role players? Or is it possible that most other role players are really that bad on both ends
? With the exception of Bowen's D, are there any rock solid two way role players for this team? Or their even any extremely efficient offensive role players aside from Brent Barry?

Why has their offense been so mediocre based on their talent?

Is part of the reason that the team isn't insanely elite on defense like in the past? They are ranked #3 in defensive efficiency, but they aren't anywhere near Boston in terms of dominance on that end. Why is that? Have Ginobili and Parker faltered that much on D? Duncan and Bowen? Was Rasho's shotblocking and having a long 3 like Hedo or Sjax who can be effective at times on both ends more valuable then first lead to believe? (Then again Rasho wasn't too valuable come 05 playoff time anyway).

Of course the competition is tougher out West for the most part then maybe since 2004 -- but I don't think that explains everything.

All the little things aren't clicking, and the Spurs are clearly underachieving on both ends despite having more talent on offense then ever, and still maintaining an excellent defensive core.

==================================================
Here is what Tracy McGrady had to say about the Boston Celtics.

"In my 11 years in the NBA, that's the best defense I've ever seen," Tracy McGrady said afterward.

Here is what Garnett had to say in responce to T-Mac's statement.

Told of that comment, Garnett paused a few seconds to digest it before answering: "That's a hell of a statement. Thank you."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime

==================================================

This used to be what players would say about the Spurs. Now the Celtics look like a BETTER version of those Spurs even.....

Makes me wonder why the Spurs have slipped so much on that end, while ALSO slipping on offense. In years past the team has had Duncan injured for a dozen of games and still rallied to finish the regular season strong. In 2005 the team even had injuries as well as 2006. They still finished near or above 60. This year it looks like they will struggle to win 53-54.

Have all the small things caught up to the Spurs? Are they simply no better than any of the other 4-5 cream of the crop West teams? Can they lose to a team like Utah or Golden State?

What gives?

[SAGambler]

Maybe it's a thing called parity.

Unlike days of yore, teams can't just get 2 or 3 outstanding American players, and play way above everyone else with them.

Now you have more and better athletes available, with more being the key word, since so many Euro players have been incorporated into the NBA. Every team has the ability to have 2 or 3 potential all stars on their roster.

This is actually a good thing, as now the competition is so much better, and there are no teams that can be considered more than a notch or two over other teams. It really is the old "any team can beat any other team on any given night". Which really raises the entertainment value of the sport.

Now if the teams in the East would raise the competition level in their conference like the teams in the West have, it would really make for some interesting seasons. No longer would their be a meaningless regular season game, whether it be in November or March or any of the months in between. Every game would be played at almost a playoff intensity game. Noone could afford to sluff off part of the season and still be around for the big stage. The fan would get their moneys worth every night.

[hater]

our D has been mediocre mostly and sometimes above average at best.

our O has been pathetic 60% of the time, and bad to average the rest of the time

[Creation88]

i crunched the #s and both are about average for us in the past 10 years.

[remingtonbo2001]

I'd say the bench. (excluding Manu)

[Budkin]

Offense for sure.

[urunobili]

Kevin Tyiska (Long Beach, California): What do you think is wrong with the San Antonio Spurs right now? Do you think they're just waiting to turn the light switch on? As a Spurs fan, i have never, ever seen them play like this under Coach Pop.

SportsNation David Thorpe: (12:28 PM ET ) Sometimes a team just struggles to light a fuse. Think Pistons 2 years ago in the playoffs.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

I think once the REST of the Spurs play with a sense of urgency, they'll get their O back.

[timvp]

I don't think the answer is as simple as picking whether it's offense or defense. Since November, the team has been extremely streaky on both ends of the court. I'd say the issues faced this year have been due to a combination of a lack of consistency and a lack of cohesiveness. I can't even remember the last game where the whole team played good basketball for all 48 minutes.

The first thing that needs to happen to fix the problem is for the players to all become more consistent and for Pop to settle on a rotation. Once the level of trust builds and the players know what to expect from possession to possession, the Spurs can then form their trademarked cohesion. At that point, the offensive and defensive numbers will naturally improve to where they need to be for the Spurs to be successful.

[Nikos]

I don't think the answer is as simple as picking whether it's offense or defense. Since November, the team has been extremely streaky on both ends of the court. I'd say the issues faced this year have been due to a combination of a lack of consistency and a lack of cohesiveness. I can't even remember the last game where the whole team played good basketball for all 48 minutes.

The first thing that needs to happen to fix the problem is for the players to all become more consistent and for Pop to settle on a rotation. Once the level of trust builds and the players know what to expect from possession to possession, the Spurs can then form their trademarked cohesion. At that point, the offensive and defensive numbers will naturally improve to where they need to be for the Spurs to be successful.

Have they been inconsistent mainly because they are slipping on D, and their role players are inferior to previous years?

[ShoogarBear]

I think they've slipped the most on D, but are also less likely to revert back into their old form on D as well. That's why I'm worried about the offense, because unfortunately I think they are going to be relying on three-point shooting to carry them through the playoffs. Man, I gagged just typing that.

[inconvertible]

A G E

[td4mvp21]

The thing that has absolutely killed us is all the isolation plays we have run all year. This team is nearly unbeatable when it moves the ball and finds the open man. That's how we won it in 2005 (arguably best Spurs team ever) and that's how we won it last year. In the Celtics game, we lost, among other things, because the entire fourth quarter was isolations and/or no ball movement. We need to get back to motion offense, good ball movement, and penetrating and dishing. That's when the Spurs are at their best. Of course, the question is whether or not the role players will be consistent...but I think a big raeson why they aren't hitting has to do with shot selection. It seems like they take a lot of contested shots at times. I may be wrong but I think getting back to good ball movement will do wonders for the Spurs.

[Agloco]

The thing that has absolutely killed us is all the isolation plays we have run all year. This team is nearly unbeatable when it moves the ball and finds the open man. That's how we won it in 2005 (arguably best Spurs team ever) and that's how we won it last year. In the Celtics game, we lost, among other things, because the entire fourth quarter was isolations and/or no ball movement. We need to get back to motion offense, good ball movement, and penetrating and dishing. That's when the Spurs are at their best. Of course, the question is whether or not the role players will be consistent...but I think a big raeson why they aren't hitting has to do with shot selection. It seems like they take a lot of contested shots at times. I may be wrong but I think getting back to good ball movement will do wonders for the Spurs.


I saw an article earlier in the season about Pop adopting some form of motion offense from Europe? I think it might have been after one of our preseason games.

Why the hell does it seem like every year Pop is running two or three distinctly different flavors of offense/player rotations? I'd like to think it's to keep us from being too predictable.......

[timvp]

Have they been inconsistent mainly because they are slipping on D, and their role players are inferior to previous years?It's likely either age of the role players or focus as a group. If age has caught up to them, their defense will deteriorate to a point where they can no longer stop other teams.

But the same outcome could be seen in the regular season just due to a lack of focus. I'm not even sure it's focus, it could be even closer to boredom with the regular season. Whatever it is, this problem is correctable. Extra energy and renewed concentration will correct the flaws, just as we saw last season.

We'll find out soon which one it is. The Spurs usually peak after March because that is the time of the year their focus returns and they start taking every possession more seriously. We'll see though because there's a chance that focus actually isn't the problem this year and it's actually that the team got too old.

I think the Spurs are fine and that it's just a focus issue but there's a chance that I'm wrong and the team just got too old. We'll see. Soon.