Turning point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Game

Why is he? Kobe has had plenty of injures over the years...he just plays through it.

no shit lakers will go nowhere without him it's the same for any team

---

Bryant is 32.

He is getting old and it shows.

Back problems.

That's old men stuff.

For mine, it's not about a "turning point" so much as a slow and steady improvement since losing to Denver and Boston early in December. Sure, there have been hiccups along the way like the Portland game, but team chemistry has improved greatly in that time and some players (like RJ) have become more comfortable in their roles. All of that has led to this fantastic b2b... that, and the Fakers at 3/4 strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

I defenitely think this game was a turning point. Unfortunately, it was a turning point in the wrong direction.

Pop's over-shortened & confusing lineups, Duncan MIA's, and substitution patterns are gonna catch up to this team eventually. There is no flow or consistency that the players can get used to. This is going to take its toll as we head into the 2nd half of the season.

Not developing Mahinmi and/or getting Ratliff involved on a regular basis is going to be very costly as well. That goes for Hairston to a lesser degree, moreso if Keith Bogans can't get his shooting act together. Haislip I would have imagined as a situational player, but there doesn't appear to be any situation Pop thinks he is suitable for.

The real shame in all this is this team has what it takes to win another championship with some halfway decent coaching.

We'll see

---

I think a 9-10 men rotation is the maximun, at this stage.
Haislip, Mahinmi and Haislip are nonsense.
So is Finley, except in very limited occasions, in which he doesn't have to show up on defense.

I am finally liking what I am seeing.

Even Jefferson can hit a clutch shot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Heart Ginobili

No. Not at all. It seems to me that these inconsistencies are the reason why all of our top players are healthy (besides parker). The fakers and celtics are hurt because their top players play a lot more minutes than ours do. This strategy is definitely going to pay dividends in the long run imo.

---

Yah, and you know why the Lakers and celtics' starters are succumbing to injury? Because of their benches being lackluster. Spurs' bench has been best in the league so far this year and is the reason Pop has been able to keep the big 3's minutes down. And so far its been working like a charm! So of course Poop has to go and mess around with something that is working perfectly.

Not playing Duncan on B2B's is not a good idea at all unless the spurs are playing like a sub .400 team.

This type of strategy may insure Duncan is 100% for the playoffs, but this puts other spurs at significant risk of injury such as Parker's planar fascitis becoming worse or Manu overdoing it and reinjuring a foot. McDyess could go down easily trying to fill the void in the middle. And this not only puts our "at risk" players in jearpordy it puts all the guys (even the ones who are younger) at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

Yah, and you know why the Lakers and celtics' starters are succumbing to injury? Because of their benches being lackluster. Spurs' bench has been best in the league so far this year and is the reason Pop has been able to keep the big 3's minutes down. And so far its been working like a charm! So of course Poop has to go and mess around with something that is working perfectly.

Not playing Duncan on B2B's is not a good idea at all unless the spurs are playing like a sub .400 team.

This type of strategy may insure Duncan is 100% for the playoffs, but this puts other spurs at significant risk of injury such as Parker's planar fascitis becoming worse or Manu overdoing it and reinjuring a foot. McDyess could go down easily trying to fill the void in the middle. And this not only puts our "at risk" players in jearpordy it puts all the guys (even the ones who are younger) at risk.

---

Injuries will happen in any situation, they could be off for a 5 days and in the first minute anyone can go down, I do agree that Pop should've played at least 9 guys yesterday. Let's see what happens in Memphis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Game

Yes spurs did but the Lakers without Gasol and Kobe playing hurt doesnt mean a great deal.

---

That may be, but what I'm seeing is a team that is beginning to believe in it's abiilty to play good hard defense and in themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alchemist

Injuries will happen in any situation, they could be off for a 5 days and in the first minute anyone can go down, I do agree that Pop should've played at least 9 guys yesterday. Let's see what happens in Memphis.

---

Injuries happen most frequently when a player is in a state of fatigue. By a long shot. I'm thankful nothing bad happened in the thunder game and the spurs squeaked out a win.

I just think there is really no practical need to hold Duncan out of any games with the spurs bench playing head and shoulders above everyone else in the league and affording the starters to play limited minutes.

But, I'm sure Parker and Ginobili will ALSO get games off at some point in the season. So it's not gonna be a big deal.

Bottom line

Duncan -32 minutes from his average

Why would Parker and Ginobili having a couple extra minutes in one game (wouldn't of if it didn't go to overtime anyways) have more of a negative effect then Duncan getting a three straight days off?