Printable View
If you're going to be relying on Ratliff to provide 25+ minutes of defense and rebounding, the Spurs are in trouble and Ratliff is in trouble. He'll be breaking down within 10 games.
If, however, we are looking for him to come in and provide 15 minutes of defense and shot blocking, that I think physically is doable for him. I have been in favor of more minutes for Ratliff for a while now. The only question is, if he's durable enough.
Tell that to the Lakers, who are starting a 35 year old player who's last good season was at least 2 years ago. Oh I forgot, we're supposed to be pretend as if they're invincible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Relying? I wouldn't say relying. Essentially, Ratliff will likely be the 10th man, counted on for 10-15 mpg. He's not as good as Mutombo, but if Mutombo could fill a similar role until he was 65, why can't Ratliff? As evidenced by his play this season, Ratliff's decline has been in large part due to injury, moreso than it has been deterioration of skills. He was never a great rebounder and always a subpar scorer. His strength was and still is the same as it's always been: blocking shots and protecting the rim.
Putting Hill in the starting lineup would solve nothing and only serve to further unbalance an already unbalanced lineup. This team generally plays with one center and one small forward and now you want them to start their only two point guards? It makes no sense. Bogans is far from ideal, but he's been decent in his role.Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
"Lakers good". I love how a team who's won one relatively unimpressive championship and has looked shaky throughout a lot of this season is put on this pedestal by so many, as if it's completely out of the realm of possibilities for the Spurs, or anyone in the West, to beat them. So long as the Spurs can match up with the Lakers length and not be completely overwhelmed by either Bynum or Gasol (whichever Duncan isn't guarding), then I see no (personnel wise, the officials might be a different story) reason why they can't beat the Lakers. More than anything, the Spurs need their personnel to start playing to their potential. Four of what should be their five best players are underachieving.
Personally, I think most of you are underrating Ratliff and grossly overrating Mahinmi. However, instead of going off into some long-winded debate, I think I'll just say we'll wait and see. If the Spurs make a trade for another defensive-minded big man, neither Mahinmi nor Ratliff will see the court anyway. If they don't, then we'll have to play with the cards we've been dealt, and I'm willing to bet that Pop will call upon Ratliff more than most people think come April.
I think an experienced defensive player who has consistently averaged between 3.2 and 4.4 blocks per 48 minutes over the past 6 years would be quite the asset for this team. If you're relying on your 3rd to 5th rotation big to score points, when you've already got Parker, Hill, Ginobili, Mason, Jefferson, Duncan, McDyess, Blair, and Bonner/Finley, then you're in trouble either way.
Good post. The spurs need to make a move to acquire another defensive big to give themselves a fighting chance in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
So how many minutes you expecting Pop to call from Ratliff in April? If Pop is not playing Ratliff now it is for a reason and that same reason will still be there in April.Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker23
No, cause then the Lakers will unleash Kareem and the Celtics Bill Rusell, and we don't want none of that.
Playing Ratliff more isn't a bad idea. He's the best shot blocker on the team and there's no doubt his presence would help the defense in the paint. Another advantage of playing Ratliff more is that he could help limit the wear and tear on Duncan because Duncan won't always have to be the one protecting the rim.
That said, some of Ratliff's stats are ugly. According to 82games.com, the Spurs score 15.3 points less per 100 possessions and give up 7.1 more points per 100 possession with Ratliff on the court. Obviously sample size has a lot to do with those numbers but I'm not yet convinced his defense offsets his offensive limitations.
The reason is durability. If you try to play him 82 games, there's next to zero chance he'll make it. If you try to play him 15-25 games in April through June, he's got a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
His minutes will depend on matchups in the playoffs. Assuming the Spurs stick with the roster they currently have, I expect Ratliff to play anywhere from 0-5 minutes per game against the Mavericks, and as much as a steady 10-20 mpg against the Lakers.
with out a doubt. until someone else that can block a shot is on the roster, give Ratliff the starting job and about 20 minutes a game.
no need to wear him out, but i'd like to see him build some chemistry with the starting and finishing units.
we can talk trade when it happens, but until then it's up to Pop to use the horses he has in the stable. he helped pick them after all. we don't want excuses.
i think we all love Blair and he can continue to get his, afterall, TD needs his rest too, but i want to see some hesitation with the other team when driving to the hole.
i don't know if Ratliff can bring the defensive presence that we'd all like to see at the level we'd like to see it, but until there is a better option...i'd like to see him given the opportunity.
p.s. trade RJ for a SF that can play defense and hit a set 3 pointer...and do it quickly. if splitter is coming next year, our Spurs should be set at all positions except SF. RJ sucks in this system. we now know this.
better d in the paint won't matter much if we have a matador on the wing who's lost on offense as well.