Printable View
Okay Pop gave Roger the nod over Bogans tonight and he produced and played decent defense, unfortunately it wasn't the outcome I would have expected.
It's time to get him in the starting lineup, especially since McDyess, TP and RJ are all struggling right now.
And while we're at it, lets just move Hairston up to take those 8-10 leftover minutes. Bogans can fill the water coolers.
Thoughts?
Well until RJ and Tony are a little more reliable with their jumpers, Spurs have no legitimate outside threat in the starting lineup. If Roger stays hot, I'd be for it. Bogans' defense has been suspect against the better teams anyway.
He should have been starting from the get-go. Bogans D is nice, but has yet to prove he can hit shots consistently. In his time, he's proving quite the opposite..
Only problem with that would be our starting backcourt defense suddenly being the worst in the NBA lol
Mason had a great game and a thread like this was expected :lol
But I agree. It makes sense to start him. Spurs need the offense and his energy on defense has improved this year. I have said this for a while and I was surprised when he was not the opening day starter.
Leave the starting five alone.
Team needs Finley.
Mason's D is average to poor, but he had a great game and was hustling tonight and he deserves Props. But, our D will definitely get worse with Mason starting in lieu of Bogans.
Who knows what Pop will do now.
Roger Mason is instant offense. So is Blair. They are both better coming off the Bench. What Spurs Management should be thinking about is starting Ginobili and Benching Jefferson. Just a thought.
We're in a tough spot..
We need a defender on the perimeter, so Bogans starts..Bogans is limited offensively..Bogans, RJ and Parker aren't 3-point shooters, so this kills our spacing and hurts the offense..
We need a shooter on the perimeter, so Mason makes sense..the problem is that Parker and RJ are poor defenders, so is Mason..so we'll have 3 poor defenders on the perimeter, which is going to kill our bigs..McDyess is just an average defender, so how exactly is this going to help?..
We don't have a guy on the roster that can defend and make 3s like Bruce did..it's a huge hole..we're going to be hurt against the better teams no matter who we start at the 2..the only way to make up for this without trading for that guy is to trade for a legit big, or maybe even try starting Ratliff to start the game to establish some kind of rhythm..
What about starting Ginobili again? That might kill the second unit's playmaking abilities though.
Or start Manu... You can save our not-so-good defenders for the other's team second unit...Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
I still think Bogans should start, and we need to start sticking with some kind of rotation... I actually thought we kind of knee-jerked today and pulled him out too quickly, when the problem we were having was on the pick and roll, and had little to do with Bogans...
The whole 'lets win by outscoring' is fool's gold... we need to keep on working on the defense even if some nights we're getting wrecked out there... if we shelve it like today, then what are we really about?
Roger's defense has been good in the games I've seen and he brings x100 more offense than Bogans. Until RJ finds some consistency in his offense, I think its a no-brainer to get Mason in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Thoughts? I may be wrong, and I will stand corrected if you say so, but weren't you one of the "Mason Sucks" advocates?
I'm thinking we should let this team play. It's really tiring to go through all this "Official ___ had a bad game they suck"
"Official ____ had a good game they should start"
back and forth, over and over. The same player is often thrown between both sentiments.
I also think that there's way too much of misunderstanding that front-loading your starting lineup makes you twice as good. That doesn't always work that way. We've been dealing with that since 2004. More noticeably 2005 when Pop started Barry so he could get Ginobili more touches off the bench. If you put 5 guys who average 20ppg in the starting lineup you are going to ruin the potential of at least 2 players. You'd have to shoot 92% to get anywhere near full productivity otherwise someone like Mason would go from 'Shooting well, Bench Assassin' to 'Not getting the ball, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Jefferson have it'
Start Manu and put RJ on the Bench. We would have our Big 3 Starting. They would set the tone and make shit happen. Meanwhile, we still got Hill, Mason, RJ, Blair and Bonner coming off the Bench. That is still a really good Bench.
C: Antonio McDyess/Matt Bonner/Theo Ratliff
PF: Tim Duncan/Dejuan Blair
SF: Keith Bogans/Richard Jefferson/Michael Finley
SG: Manu Ginobili/Roger Mason
PG: Tony Parker/George Hill
Make it happen Pop. :toast
Ah, who am I kidding? This shit ain't happening. :depressed
easy solution: start george hill instead of bogans
hill is a much better offensive player than bogans, and just as good a defender.
and i'd take hill over mason any day.
Defense is important but Roger is playing as good as Bogans and he's light years ahead of him on offense. Bogans' should have never been annointed the starter in the first place after that awful pre-season. Heck, he should have never been signed, period. Thanks to the Bogans' signing we won't get to see how good Hairston could have been. He could have been very fucking good in 10-15 mins a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
roger has to start man, he even said it best in a recent article i read that quoted him saying its rough to come in and just be ready to play, last year he started thats when he made those big game winners, now him coming off the bench makes it harder for him to get in rhythm.....ya dig
I don't mind starting Manu to see how it would look..it's tough to determine whether or not to try new starting lineups or to stick with a rotation..
I.. a.. g.. r.. e.. e..Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
..
How did Bogans become a Starter in the first place? It just happened didn't it? Well, I just want to see Manu start just once. Just to see how it goes.
When he was first signed I didn't like him, thought he was too 1 dimensional. He's improved his all around game since then. That fast break layup he made over an outstretched Grant Hill was beautiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by draft87
As far as front loading the starting lineup goes, you may have a point. However, after watching 3 of the starters struggle to find offense I don't know if the spurs can afford not to if they wanna keep up in the standings. The alternatives are bench your core players Parker, RJ, and Dice. Which obviously isn't going to work.
The next step if this don't work would be to look at trade scenarios but even that is gonna be tough.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by bgonzo53
And it has got to be a huge blow to his ego and confidence that a guy who shot something like 1-19 in the preseason on a veteran's minimum salary walks in at the last second and eclipses his role on the team.
pop just has so much to choice from he has to just figure out the best way we match up with the team, im been telling people just wait til we go on the rodeo road trip and we mesh, once we see how to do that we are bout to take over.....hopefully lol
Pop clearly doesn't know how to handle Mason right now. The other day he logs single-digit minutes and tonight he gets a lion's share.
The problem with Mason is that he's a feast or famine offensive player. One minute he's lights out and the next he's ice cold. Factor in that his defense can sometimes be a liability and the much more "stable" choice is Bogans.
The only other wildcard I'll throw in is Hill. Pop obviously wants to get the kid more minutes and he's got the length to guard the 2-spot. I wouldn't be entirely shocked to see Hill starting alongside Parker in the future.
As for Mason though, I think he'll eventually settle into the "shooter" role off the bench. How much he plays will depend on how well he shoots.
I disagree. I think Bogans have been doing a great job defensively in most of the games he has played, and much better than Roger defensively, considering he normally guards the other team's best perimeter player where RMJ is normally paired with a bench player. Sure, it's easy to get all excited when RMJ is nailing those threes... but it's fools gold. At some point you're going to need a stop and if you didn't work hard enough on your defense, you're not going to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
The other reality here is that under regular circumstances, Duncan, Tony and Richard SHOULD give you more than enough offense. We've just been unable to get them all going against good teams...
+1 on elnono..while these minor changes could make a difference, obviously the success of this team will depend on guys like TP and RJ, and they aren't playing well at all this year..
I agree that we should try to start Mason, and said so a week ago:
RJ and Bogans can theoretically hit 3-pointers, but it's not happening, so something needs to change up to get better spacing early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker23
What's fools gold is relying on Bogans' defense when the evidence so far has shown he gets torched by the likes of Brandon Roy, Ray Allen, Carmelo Anthony. He isn't close to Bruce Bowen's caliber as a defender.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Defense takes time. Bowen didn't do his job all alone. He knew where to take players on the floor where he would get more help, and stuff like that. He didn't stop Lebron all on his own in 2007. Simply shelving defense instead of trying to improve on it is not going to win you anything. I thought last year was a pretty good sample of what happens when your defense is not up to par... quick first round exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
The guy is too damn short and stocky, is has nothing to do with time. Unless your suggesting he's going to grow 4 inches.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
He's 2 inches shorter than Bowen... what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
You move Mason to the starting lineup and he's option number 4 or 5 anyways, behind Duncan, Parker and RJ... If Tony and Richard are taking but not making shots, what difference does it make? Other than having the assurance the other team will score at the other end?
And he plays shorter because of his short arms and husky frame that keeps him nailed to the floor. Remember how easily Ray Allen rose up over him for easy shots a couple weeks ago? And Ray Allen is not a tall player by any stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Again, you are underrating Mason's defense. You probably heard this mantra from last year's playoffs and its now perma-etched in your head. All the games I've seen so far this year his defense has been respectable.
Against who? I've watched every single Spurs game this season too, and he actually started horribly on both offense AND defense, then improved on the offensive end. He's obviously putting effort on defense, but he's just not the kind of guy that will body up to another player, or dive for a loose ball. He also hasn't been tasked to cover the Roy's and the Melo's that you were complaining about.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
And you are still dodging the other point here... What's the point of playing him out there as option 4 or 5 anyways?
If Tony is moving toward more of a playmaking role it makes perfect sense from that standpoint. Duncan as well. If Timmy is going to kick it out to a shooter we need somebody who can not only get the shot off but make it too. Roger excels at both. Too many times I watch Parker dribble around looking for places to go with the ball as the shot clock winds down and he can't find anyone and turns the ball over. Mason would help in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Another thing: RJ is looking to be limited in a half court offense. Why not just forget that experiment and let Roger move up and take his half court touches. Let RJ do most of his damage in the running game.
That leads me to this point: Mason has a much better full court game than Bogans. That layup he made over Grant Hill was absolutely sick. If Mason can improve the fast break opportunities that will play to RJ's strengths out there.
I disagree. If Tony is giving the ball up, then it's for Duncan or Jefferson... makes sense... they're the best options out there...or they're supposed to be anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
I rather work in improving the team defense than the offense. I don't think the problem of our starting lineup in general is the offense really, but the inconsistency on defense. We need to be able to make stops when the ball is not going in, and we're not doing it. Putting another scorer in there is not going to help matters at all.
RJ is going to have to learn to play with Duncan and Parker, same thing with Dice. It all boils down to the fact that when crunch time comes, he'll be out there with those guys and he needs to learn what to do out there. I think that's entirely the reason Pop has not moved Dice to the bench even when his play has been more down than up recently. We probably will lose some games in the process, but that's just the tradeoff from learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Actually George Hill needs a hella lot more minutes. I think he'd make a difference defensively for the Spurs and he's been there long enough to know the system. Throw him into the fire.
17 points in the 1st quarter against the suns and offense is not our problem? Ok :/Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Obviously your going to believe what you want, but time will tell who's right.
The problem with George is that he gets no respect being a sophomore, and he gets in foul trouble rather easily. He's still learning the ropes. I'm sure he'll get more time later down the season if he learns not to give up those ticky tacky fouls that often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Indazone
It's not because Bogans took exactly 0 shots. That means our best players out there in Duncan, Tony and Jefferson, took the shots, which is what you want, and we missed everything. Swapping Mason for Bogans wouldn't have made any difference at all. The actual problem was not that we only scored 17, the problem was that we couldn't stop them from scoring 28 points on us.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
That's some convoluted logic to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What's convoluted about it? When Tim, Tony and Richard (or Manu) are out there, that's the guys you want taking shots. There's nothing convoluted about that. If they're not making shots, then that puts pressure on our defense. If our defense is not up to par, then we're fucked. Just because you put Mason out there doesn't mean he's going to be taking Tim, Tony or Richard shots, and there's so many shots available out there for everybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
This is basic basketball stuff here.
The answer is so obvious, and it doesn't involve Mason or Bogans:
start George Hill
Just like Adleman threw Aaron Brooks into the fire, perhaps it's time to throw George into the fire too. Sure he'll be up and down but after a few games, we were all glad over here in Houston that Brooks was out there instead of Rafer Suckass Alston.
It's convoluted because your basically saying as bad as the offense is the defense should just work that much harder to compensate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Those guys you mentioned "who you want taking shot", aren't getting it done, bonehead. When Duncan has to score almost 40 and the spurs lose there is a problem. You can bet he is going to be burned out come playoff time at this pace.
So what's wrong? Bogans plain sucks on offense. Jefferson sucks in half court and is more of a full court player. Solution: swap in a guy like Mason who helps get the half court offense going and helps get the running game going at the same time.
See, basic basketball stuff here.
Ofcourse. That's how good teams do it, and that's how we won our championships. Bruce Bowen had low scoring nights out there, but he still found ways to affect the game defensively. Eventually, it becomes psychological. You don't worry that much about missing a shot, because you know you can get it back at the other end. But when you don't have that safety net, you put a lot more pressure on your offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Bogans only played 10 minutes tonight. He played alongside Duncan, Jefferson and Parker. If Mason would have played those extra 10 minutes, we would have been exactly on the same hole, because when Duncan, Jefferson and Parker are out there, they take the shots. It matters very little wether Bogans sucks on offense or not. We already have other players working the bulk of the offense. We need complementary players than play defense with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Your 'swap Mason for RJ' is a different story altogether, but one that I already addressed in another post. It's RJ that's going to be in crunch time with TD, TP and Manu out there, not Mason. So he's going to have to learn to play with them.
This is always under the premise that the coaching staff believes that Jefferson is a better player overall than Mason, which I think they do.
Pop has something weird going on with Mason this season. He seems to be treating him like candidate #1 for Pop's annual unexplained doghouse. Mason still isn't great but his shooting is still solid, and his handle has improved immensely to a now acceptable level.
If Bogans can't hit the side of the barn AND Tony can't get himself or RJ involved and Dice is a no show, then the starting lineup is going to suck, as it did tonight. We're all amazed with how well the second unit plays, but they're the only players who consistently play hard all the time. On cue, the first unit comes back tonight and the deficit immediately grows back to 10 points.
This season is going to continue to be a work in progress. This will be Pop's greatest test as a coach. Very curious to see how he responds.
Duncan, Jefferson, and Parker don't have to "take all the shots". Who the fuck ever said that? Is that a rule written somewhere? :nopeQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Let's review.
1. Tony Parker is trying to pass the ball more and become a more complete point guard. Therefore, he needs guys who can get their shots off and finish baskets, something Roger does well.
2. It's becoming apparent that Jefferson is not that useful in a half court setting. He thrived in a run and gun type offense with a guy like Jason Kidd leading the charge, but let's face it, Parker is no Jason Kidd. Roger likes to run and gun and will help Jefferson in that area too.
3. The first unit is missing a 3 pt specialist/threat. Bogans is mediocre at best. Duncan will get more spacing from sagging defenders with Roger.
I would easily bet $1000 that the spurs would have scored more than 17 in that 1st quarter with Roger starting.
Manu needs to start.
Fuck the head games, the 5 best players need to start the game and finish the game.
We don't have the luxury of bringing manu of the bench anymore, we simply don't have the same level of talent we once did.
Let me see, your best players taking the most shots... Hmm, I wonder if that makes any sense... I mean, you really need a rule spelling out common sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
:rolleyes
Spurs of the Moment was saying to start Roger Mason too, but I don't know how much difference it would make. If he goes back to shooting like crap do you keep changing the lineup? Then again, Bogans is really sucking it up right now.