Printable View
Is it a legitimate attempt to avoid injury to his no acl knees?
Or is it Lord Poppycock at his finest?
b. Why does Blair seldom play alongside Timmy Dunkar? Was not ST happy to see Dunkan finally get some rebounding help from the front line? (Other then Pops power forwards of choice Matt Bonner and Mike Finley.)
Why are Blair's minutes limited?
A) Tim Duncan
B) Antonio McDyess
C) Matt Bonner
Three big men who are ahead of him in the rotation and demand a good chunk of the bigman minutes. Not to mention that he probably also drops spot minutes to Theo Ratliff to keep his old bones rattling, as well as Pop's tendency to go small.
B) Both Tim and Blair are low-post players. They occupy and work in the same space. Pop usually puts Blair on the floor with a shooting big man (Bonner, Dice) to help spread the floor, although I'd like to see him paired more with Duncan and have Tim just move to the high post.
I think the biggest reason Blair doesn't play alongside Tim much is that they both play out of the low post. They clog the paint together (which is bad for Tony, Manu, and RJ) and there's nobody to step out and guard the athletic bigs who play on the perimeter.
Championships with DRob, Man From Nazr-Rasho, and Elson.
All low post Tall Ball players.
More of Pop's military war tactics. Break down and demoralize the "hot" new recruit. Then build him up in his own image. Smae shit he did to Hill last year. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Blair got a few DNP-CDs, some time soon.
Blair should play earlier this game as Amare/Nash are too athletic for Bonner and TD and mcdyess.
Elson and Rasho were not low post players, and during the 03 season D-Rob's most effective weapon was a face up mid range jumper. They were all 7 footers and true centers, but offensively they were used more for spreading the floor to give Tim room to work. It's true that Nazr was all about the paint, but Robert Horry was usually in there finishing games during that 05 run as well.
But I'm getting off track. I think something that's playing into the decision is some anticipation of Blair hitting the "rookie wall" at some point. It happens to just about everyone but it would be an especially big concern for a guy with questionable knees whose biggest asset is his energy out on the court. If fatigue sets in that's doubly worrisome because that's when injuries happen and slows down a guy's hustle. Still, the guy's been improving pretty steadily in my eyes. I'd like to see him thrown in at the deep end of the pool and see what happens.
I could list about 5 more reasons why Blair's minutes are limited, but I just realized who the OP was. Gonna cut my losses and quit while I'm behind.
By the way, Duncan is spelled Duncan.
I think it's hard to rationalize the rationing of his minutes. Last night he was the second best big on the floor for the Spurs and he only managed 14 minutes.
I understand the logic that he operates most effectively in the paint, which is where TD makes a good living, but I disagree with it for one big reason....both Duncan and Blair are smart players that can impact the game in a number of ways. While Blair hasn't perfected the outside shot, he effectively executes the pick-and-roll and displays the energy/effort to clean up misses (whether they come from Duncan or any other player).
I just think this guy is too good to justify not giving him more minutes...agree with the OP.
He was in foul trouble last night...
George Hill was too....didn't stop Pop from playing him almost double Blair's minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
Blair is like Manu in that they can only play one way.... all out. Besides, avoiding the next foul for a guard in foul trouble is easier to manage than a post player under the same scenario...Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Dice sucks in the starting line-up.
Blair would clean up so many put-backs in the starting 5 it would be ridiculous. Bench could even come in not already down by 10, wouldn't that be a nice change.
Blair was in foul trouble in the first half, and in the second half we went with Small Ball(tm) with Tim as the only big. It was good enough for us to shred their 20 point lead, so Pop kept on playing it all the way pretty much to the end.
It offers some hope.
A small blurb from Lord Poppycock in Jeff McDs article today:
Role revision: Popovich says he hasn't abandoned the idea of using rookie DeJuan Blair in the starting lineup. Blair, 6-foot-7, started two games at center in early November.
“It was too early, and he wasn't ready for that,” Popovich said. “We've been giving him more and more minutes as we go, so it's a possibility going forward.”
Aka as extreme insecurity. What a bunch of abusive crap. So it worked with Tony Parker 8 years ago. Maybe Parker was a party boy and needed it. Has not worked with ANYONE else since.Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorSpur
Lets dream Popped will accept some therapy before he further runs the wheels off the latter stages of the Dunkan-GNob-Parker era.
Note to Pop: The only time you should roll out small ball with Duncan is when Blair is on the floor. Let him be the small ball PF/C option.
Once upon a time we trotted out Perdue, DRob, and TD :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Xevious
List of 20? Waiting for it still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Lol
of course.
Up until recently, I have not been an advocate of Blair playing more minutes. In fact, I wanted McDyess to play a few more and Ratliff to play period, because the lack of interior defense and rim protection outside of Duncan was glaring. But with McDyess struggling, Ratliff seemingly destined to play sparingly until at least post All-Star break and with Blair continuing to produce insane per minute scoring and rebounding, it is time that he play more. Particularly during this up coming easy stretch of games, where the Spurs play 9 of 10 against sub .500 teams.
That said, this nonsense about "he can't play with Duncan because they're both low post players" is garbage. This is the type of foolish thinking we heard with regards to Scola playing with Duncan. The fact of the matter is, most of the time when two players are talented, committed and have a high IQ for the game as well as a good coach, they can figure it out. Pop said last year he wanted Duncan playing less in the post in the regular season and this would be a way to do it while still getting scoring on the block. Defensively, they may not be an ideal combination (though Blair can't seriously be significantly worse than Bonner at guarding mobile, face-up four's), but offensively? Absolutely, because Duncan can make the mid-range jumper. I don't see the Lakers (I'm not comparing Blair to Gasol/Bynum) benching one of Gasol or Bynum at all times because they're technically both low post players. Gasol can make the mid-range jumper and they're intelligent enough to know how to effectively play off each other while staying out of each others way.
How about this for a novel idea: instead of the Spurs always being worried about matching up with the opposition, how about they make the opposition worry about matching up with them for a change? I doubt there's many front court combination's in the league that would be able to keep Duncan and Blair off the glass simultaneously and prevent either scoring in the post or getting to the line with frequency.
Just like Pop is contradictory with saying he wants Duncan to shoot more jumpers during the regular season (then playing him with perimeter oriented lineups), he also is with this talk of wanting the Spurs to be top 3-5 defensively again. Because playing Blair almost exclusively with Bonner gives the team no rim protection whatsoever; as does not playing Ratliff.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2po39t3.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by EricB
Yep. Malik Rose playing alongside Dunkan in the 2003 Championship run. Only time 'Popped has beaten Fill Jackson in 5 tries.Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
Duncan and Blair were the shit against the Celtics in the fourth. How could that be possible???:bang
I thought Blair actually played a bit longer last night. But yeah, he needs more minutes, so we can see more of what he is capable of.
Ever since the 2006 semi WCF it feels like the Spurs lineup has been way too dictated by the opposition's lineup. If it wasn't for Oberto's savvy game and good hands, Horry still being contracted, and Bonner's inexperience, who knows if Matt would have gotten more playing time in 2007, with the way Pop & Co. think his skill set at PF is so important. I would like to see the Spurs get away from finding a Robert Horry replacement, and get back to dominating the boards and controlling the paint. Every minute that Duncan plays with Bonner, I feel like we're asking too much from both of them. Duncan + Blair just makes sense if we're talking about fortifying our strengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manufan909
Yep, Pops marriage to Finley definitely was the start of the Spurs downfall.Quote:
SCdac Ever since the 2006 semi WCF it feels like the Spurs lineup has been way too dictated by the opposition's lineup. If it wasn't for Oberto's savvy game and good hands, Horry still being contracted, and Bonner's inexperience, who knows if Matt would have gotten more playing time in 2007, with the way Pop & Co. think his skill set at PF is so important. I would like to see the Spurs get away from finding a Robert Horry replacement, and get back to dominating the boards and controlling the paint. Every minute that Duncan plays with Bonner, I feel like we're asking too much from both of them. Duncan + Blair just makes sense if we're talking about fortifying our strengths.
Well we got to see Blair start next to Timmy Dunkar vs the Clippers last night.
That's a start. Lets see if Lord Poppycock can do it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Dear Fabbs,
Would you please consider stopping the excessive misspell-nickname shenanigans?
It's really hard to read your posts; let alone take you seriously. You'd like us to take you seriously, right? Well, everyone can have their own opinion but let's try to keep someone's identification down to one name, one nickname? ....especially since it should be considered bad taste to slander your own team members/coach. Slanderous puns are something that lame Lakers fans try to use when they can't find a legitimate reason to say "Spurs<Lakers"...you know, Popazit, Spurm, Boner, Manure, etc.
When Fakers fans do that crap you can see right through it and say, "Man, it must suck being a Lakers fan...nothing better to do than try to annoy Spurs fans...how pathetic."
When supposed Spurs fans mock their own team it's despicable. It's so not cool. It's so pointless and totally New York Knicks. Spurs fans are better than that. If you really need to stoop that low then maybe it's time to find another team. ...unless you WANT to be known as that ignoramus who knows so little about basketball that he spends more time mocking his team than he does CHEER them? ? ? ? ?
I'm still waiting on that list of 20 he was supposed to come up with about two months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
I guess he actually thinks this is satisfactory.
Expect a Christmas present TParkle.Quote:
Originally Posted by EricB
Foul trouble coupled with defensive mistakes.