Bonner has Returned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

More like an SF on offense and defensively, he's a PF by default, because he lacks the size and/or strength to guard C's and the quickness to guard SF's. He's not 7'0'' (I've never understood why people do this with basketball players, just round up from 6'10'' to 7'0'' like it's nothing. You don't ever hear people say if someone is 5'10'' "he's a 6'0'' footer").

Barefoot Bonner is 6'8'' 1/2, so I'll give him somewhere in the 6'9'' range (could be a quarter, a half, who knows exactly) in shoes, but more important than his not so overwhelming vertical listing for a PF is his lack of length. For example, Ratliff is probably less than an inch taller than Bonner barefoot, but he's clearly got a much longer wingspan, so it gives the impression or feels like he's actually closer to 7'0''. That and the fact that he plays like a traditional big man, at least defensively.

---

I hate when people do this as well. There is a huge difference between 6'9" and 7'0". Bonner was listed at 6'9" when he played PF/SF for the raptors. Now he's listed at 6'10".........strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007nites

I hate when people do this as well. There is a huge difference between 6'9" and 7'0". Bonner was listed at 6'9" when he played PF/SF for the raptors. Now he's listed at 6'10".........strange.

---

Exactly. No, Bonner was also listed at 6'10'' when he played for the Raptors and he never played SF. 10 years ago, a guy like Bonner would have played both forward positions and maybe actually have played more SF than PF. But the game has changed in recent years, to the point where plenty of players who broke in as SF's now play almost strictly PF and the same for plenty of players who broke in as PF's now playing almost strictly C.

The guy is cheap and he does add to our bench I am more upset at Jefferson who is getting payed four times more then Bonner and giving us nothing to date.

As far as Jefferson he is reminding me of Dallas getting Williams and him doing nothing. The Spurs oragnization was Stupid to get a guy who does not fit our style of ball. Also, it kills me to hear Pop saying "Son we didn't bring you over for your offense we brought you over for you defense" What stupid MO FO is going to pay 15 million for a SF to only play defense????

Bonner's ability to shoot the three is outmatched by his inability to guard solid centers.

I'd rather have Mason in at SF or SG to be the guy to shoot the three than a guy does the same except can't post up or defend.

Bonner haters are funny.

That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I was not saying the Spurs don't need him, I was saying it would be smarter to fill other needs. But I would not just dump him for nothing.

---

Amen.

The Bonner injury should've been a blessing in disguise - at least for Pop. If nothing more, it should've made him realize that he doesn't need to lean on Bonner as much as he likes. Nor does he necessarily need him on the court for big minutes to space the floor. The perimeter players (Mason, Bogans, Hill) are doing a good job of that already. Blair has been a godsend and has already improved upon and surpassed any defensive level Bonner ever had.

NOTE TO POP:
No more sacred cows. Time to move on past Bonner. Finley too.

I'm not a Bonner fan by any stretch of the imagination, but Mahinmi and Haislip aren't NBA-level players and Ratliff is really only a garbage time player who might provide a few decent minutes against teams with really big frontlines like LA or Boston. I'm not endorsing Bonner, but among those 4, he's the best scrub.