Printable View
Correct me if I am wrong aside from Tiago signing the Spurs off season changes has basically boiled down to this:
Out : Bogans and Masson
In: Anderson and Neal
Did I miss anyone else?
Oh come to think of it : we can add:
Ian: out
Tiago: In
But really no point in analyzing who is better between the two so that does not count.
But between Anderson-Neal vs Bogans-Masson. Are we better off ? Is there really any significant difference. I actually don't see it.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING could be worse than Bogans and Mason from last year. You could honestly put lakaluva and DazedandConfused in Bogans/Mason's positions and they'd do a better job.
It's a shame the Spurs had to bring Bonner back, but at least they removed 2/3 of their dead weight from last year.
Though I'm not exactly holding my breath for RJ this season.
Anderson and Neal have the chance to be the best shooting duo the Spurs have ever had, well at least the best since Kerr, Barry, Horry, and Jax.
Mason and Bogans couldn't find the barn door if the cows were in front of it doing the chicken dance.
It leaves us undersized, but Anderson and Neal could be really good additions if they can fit and live up to their billing.
Just look at their pedigree- Italian league MVP and Big 12 player of the year.
those two over bogans is an upgrade for sure and hopefully mason will soon be forgotten
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper
theyre both unproven at the NBA level, but definitely have the potential to be far better than mason and bogans could ever dream of being
Soooo...Neal is gonna be on the big-league roster AND get PT?
Sounds like a tall order, especially considering he's under 30 and his coach is Gregg Popovich.
Ok obviously Anderson and Neal are way better shooters and scorers. However Bogans mainly got PT for his defense, the way I see it between RJ and Anderson both have to step up their defense this year for us to go anywhere. In fact I think more than offense what RJ has to give us is better defense. We can't afford to have a guy (RJ) playing close to 30 min and giving crapy defense. Especially if the guy coming in to sub him ( Anderson) is not know for D.
the roster in the coming season has way more excitement than last year
Anderson and Neal should be regarded as Mason Jr replacements and they cannot be any worse than him. I guess Hairston will take some of Bogans minutes at sf but that seems to be our weakest position and we really need another long, tough, defensive minded sf.
I really can't see Hariston or Gee taking the place of Bogans , especially in terms of playing time. If any of the 2 get the same minutes Bogans got, we are definetly screwed. The defense really has to come from someone else , who will actually get court time . And that role lands on no one else but RJ and Anderson
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSteffo
We were not screwed with Bogans getting heavy minutes last season??? If Hairston cannot even take some of Bogans minutes next season he should not even be on the team.
I hope Anderson will get plenty of minutes but I don't count on it and I certainly don't see Pop letting him play sf if he gets abused by bigger players there. Maybe Manu will have to slide over to sf. However the ideal thing would be to have a Bowen type player at sf.
Get used to it we don't and won't have a Bowen type player at SF. Guys like RJ , Anderson just have suck it up and play D. It dosen't take great atleticim to play D. Bowen was no way as athletic as RJ. This is more a mental thing than anything.
As to Hariston should'nt even be on the team, yeah he actually might not even make the team and even if he did I would be surprise if he got any significant PT
i agree call me stupid but i think IF parker decides to not re-sign and we must trade this is something we should def go after a hell of a wing defender at SF (batnum) that can play bad ass on both ends and a defensive center or trade for a SF and a top draft pick froma shitty team who will be high.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSteffo
so but now that we have splitter/blair/hill for the future if we can add those two things we can be a bad ass team for many years to come
I agree that we will not have a Bowen type player next season and contrary to yourself I see that as a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
It takes athleticism to play D and great athleticism to be a great defender. Ever read any scouting reports like in pre draft analyses? Bowen was both very athletic and extremely tough.
As for Hairston getting signed, it seems the FO are high on him since they let him skip summer league and he has some experience of the Spurs system already. Again, I wish we had a better option than Hairston at backup sf. Anderson is a sg who will struggle on D against taller sf.
Actually I am in agreement that perimeter defense is a huge question mark for this season. I see where the shooting will come from ( Anderson, Neal). But defense , i'm not sure. And I don't think we have a choice but to rely on the players who will get court time. (RJ and Anderson). I don't see Hariston getting significant court time. There just isn't enough minutes to share at the wing, with Manu, RJ and Hill all getting close to 30 min, plus Anderson's 15 + min .
The only way I see us getting a quality defensive Bowen or Odom like player is via trade. And TP is our best trading asset. You've got to give to get
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSteffo
anderson is a rookie and will need some time to adjust to the nba
neal having played pro ball for 3 years will have a quicker adjustment to the nba.
both are natural shooters that both bogans and mason really never were.
anderson is way more athletic than bogans or mason.
not sure abour neal's athleticism, but i hoping it is better than mason or bogans.
mason was terrible in that he didn't really leap that high and was very weak driving to the basket.
bogans only offense was the spot up shot, anything beyond that was a bad shot. bogans also didn't ssem to have the length and athleticism to bother a good sg.
hairston likely will have a lot of playing time early in the season. in fact, if gee is still around by the stat, he likely will get playing time over anderson and neal.Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
it could take some time for these two to know the system.
the plus with these two is that they play the pick and role so much better than hairston or gee.
i for some reason feel that hairston and gee don't really have high basketball iq.
Neal is purely a situational 3 point specialist. don't see him getting more than 10 min a game. He can either play the 1 or 2, but even if he plays the one with say Manu, don't expect him to handle the ball and make plays , Manu although the SG will do the playmaking with Neal playing off the ball much like Steve Kerr played of Jordan. So essentially Neal is strictly a shooting guard
While Anderson athough a rookie stands a good 4 inches taller than Neal which will allow him to play some small forward. I don't see how Neal strictly a SG gets more playing time than Anderson given we're loaded at the SG with Manu and HIll
Agreed except that who will get PT is not set but depends on who will help us win games. We will see lots of experimentation since we bring in a couple of new players and Pop is Pop. Also it will depend on the opposition. I would hope they will avoid having Anderson defend elite, tall small forwards, but who knows, last season we had some crazy (small) lineups in the regular season.Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
I'm a little surprised that it is so difficult to find a decent defensive sf. The FO got extremely lucky finding Bowen and since then has done a very poor job at finding a replacement. I don't want them to trade TP though and it should not be necessary in order to find a backup sf.
Anderson is listed at 6'6", Neal is listed at 6'4". So its more like "2 inches taller".Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
Neal may be a liability in defense.
Long term, I would see Anderson getting the more minutes than Temple, Neal, Hairston and Gee. Short term, I expect Hairston to get a lot of minutes.
tp: 33 minutes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceperez
manu: 28 minutes
Hill: 35 minutes
that leaves 0 minutes for a sg. Essentially, probably we would have a situational 3pt shooter only.
Anderson will probably see most of his minutes at the 3 unless there is an injury.
RJ will play around 33 minutes too; that really just leaves 15 minutes. those will be up for grabs.
So the Spurs' guard depth is a rookie and a scumbag who had to play in Europe for a while.
Yet, he was not.
Anderson Will Surprise alot of people..... I think he has a Bright Career In The NBA
We don't have a traditional PG (run offense & assist as primary job) on the roster, including TP. It may be a league wide trend to combo guards at the position rather than PGs in the mold of Kidd, Stockton and Nash.
Instead of an unwieldy jam of players at SG, you may be seeing Pop go with the trend to combo guards and play all these guys as interchangeable SF, PG and SG.
Maybe Anderson will be a stand out, but I don't see anyone else besides Splitter doing anything noteworthy. I am talking, of course, about the new comers. I don't think RJ will be any different than he was last year. He still won't play defense well, he will miss every other rotation and he will sit on the bench frustrated. Bonner will turn the ball over a few times and heave up some bricks. He will have a couple of early games where he gets some points because no one is showing on him, but that will just give him the green light to throw up more bricks.
Manu will be hurt early, and Tony will throttle it back until Christmas. Tim will be Tim, but his FT shooting will be worse and he won't see many minutes, just a few cameos if the Spurs aren't in serious contention.
They really have not improved their position. Blair is good, but he doesn't have the size to compete in a game where he's being guarded. Where's the scoring going to come from, the bench?
The only thing I see lurking is Temple. I think his maturity and calmness on the court is important, even though he only hits from one side of the court it seems. I like him. But he won't see enough playing time.
George Hill might be better if he's aggressive enough, but if he's not, he will be watching others trying to score while he tries to run the point.
Also Kidd, Stockton, Nash... neither have led a team to a championship. It takes more than just a savvy PG to overcome inside presence, length and athletic ability. Why do the teams with the great PGs never get far? Magic was the last great PG that I can recall to take his team to a ring. TP is a good PG, but he's not a passer. Magic wasn't even the same type of PG as the true PGs today. He could be a forward just as easy (or a center as we saw).
Um, the Spurs also have Hill or Ginobili. Take your pick on who will be coming off the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Blair doesn't have size? I guess you missed the games where he was dominating against KG Sheed and Perkins, or when he went for 27 and 23 against Haywood and Dampier, or when Denver's Chris Anderson couldn't stop him (Pop's dumb-ass wound up putting in Bonner). You can't forget how unstoppable he was against the Thunder even though he was getting doubled at one point (they had Ibaka on him, remember him from the LA-OKC series?). If you get Blair the ball there is a very good chance he will score, the problem is that he doesn't get the ball enough which should change in his 2nd season.
We had the best bench in the league last year, they averaged somewhere around 40 PPG last year. That was with RMJ averaging 6.3 PPG in 19 mins while shooting 39% from the field. Bogans as well, who averaged 20 mins per game while shooting 40% from the field and averaging 4 PPG.
Temple will probably get playing time this year, Pop said he's his new favorite player. Pop likes his defense and said he's been very impressed with Temple so far.
indeed, basketball fans are always moaning about the "true PG" or "pass-first PG".
the fact that managers and coaches aren't so much should indicate something.
I didn't say we needed a traditional PG. I said the modern trend seems to be combo guards and we have a bunch of them. We are following the trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Trying to convert kids from a SG in college to a PG in the pros is a tough prospect. It may work out or may not.
Some of the problem with the lack of "true" PGs to choose from may be the fact they don't get much hype so kids grow up wanting to be the best scoring guard on a team, not the best playmaker.
I see Anderson and Neal as an either/or proposition. I think one will be in the rotation at all times, but I think the other backup wing in the rotation is likely to be Hairston.
Someone needs to guard top opposition wings and by all accounts, he's the only one of the three with a chance at doing an adequate job. The Spurs keeping him out of Summer League spoke volumes about what they think of him and the plan they have for him this upcoming season. I don't think that plan is just to make the roster, but to make the rotation. I think that's the reason we haven't heard of Bogans potentially being re-signed or them pursuing a Bogans replacement.
no way popovich gives all of these rookies a bunch of playing time. I wonder what he's up to.
What this comes down to is : Who among the 4 players (Neal, Hariston, Temple, Gee) will get significant ( rotation player) or the most playing time .
Take your pick. Immediately for this year my pick is Neal
Now I'm assuming Anderson makes the rotation ( some of you might disagree) . If he dosen't then the Spurs just waisted their highest pick (20 th)since TD for nothing, Don't see that happening. BTW this is no Highschool kid project we are talking about but a full college senior who has played big games in front of 20k crowds making big shots as the main man. The Spurs are expecting immediate contribution.
@ ceperez. No way Anderson is just 2 inches taller than Neal (Neal's 6' 4" listed hight is a lie). All this means however is Anderson can play spot minutes as a small forward not Neal. Which is significant for PT. Given were loaded at 2 and RJ being are only legit 3.
Anderson and Neal are redundant. It's fine to have both on the team, but I'm not sure both are needed in the rotation at once. Someone needs to guard top opposition wings and it isn't going to be them. Hairston has a chance to be successful at that, a la T. Allen. He hasn't had enough of a chance to say he hasn't shown anything in two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas 2 Step
So you would be happy letting Anderson match up against big small forwards 4-5 inches taller than him even though he is not known for his D? You don't think our opponents would cheer and exploit that opportunity?Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
I hope Anderson will get 10-15 minutes at sg mainly when RJ plays sf and he might get a couple of minutes at sf depending on the opponent. Hairston should be main backup sf if we cant find a better one.
There must be some trade opportunities if we want to have a more balanced team. For example Pistons drafted 3 sf last summer while already having Prince. They are not bad either (Jonas Jerebko was a steal in the second round).
Hmmm... Isiah Thomas anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
But yea.. unless you have Jordan a great big man will beat a great pg team.
Anderson has a good chance to be a decent nba player but Roy level? Not really.
What are the chances teams would have a 6'10" prolific scoring SF as a second stringer. Yes I am suggesting Anderson will play some minutes (10 mins ) at Small Forward behind starter RJ. But I can't see it hurting more than it will help. Ok granted some teams might have a 6'10" SF coming of the bench , but with Anderson at 3 standing in the corner , that will stretch out their defense opening things up for us. And if a team want's to exclusively isolate their 6'10" 2nd string SF on the low block on Anderson , be my guest , that will only take away their offense from their strengths. This so called match-up problem at the 3 for the second team is an overated concern, I don't see it hurting us significantly if anything putting a scoring shooting SF in short stretches will help us more than hurt. Think Detroits 3 guard line-up with Vinnie Johnson. I don't recal Brent Barry being killed at the low block by opposing 2nd team players. What I do remember is Brent Barry burning threes for the second unit.
I only see value in bringing a defensive minded but limited offensive player like Hariston or Tony Allen if they are given decent minuted to make an impact (at least 10 min) With the miuntes our main wings are getting theres nothing left for Hariston . Remember (defensive wings) are best used if they are matched up against the teams best offensive player like Kobe and LBJ who normally start. No point in bringing them in when a luke walton is on the court.
So I really don't see how we will use Hariston given our line-up and rotation
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSteffo
Analyzed, I get your main points and they are valid, but three things:
Being undersized not only gives problems on D but also on O if you are up against good, athletic defenders. You also give up a couple of rebounds. Detroits small forwards are Prince (6-9), Jerebko (6-10), Daye (6-11) and "shorty" Summers (6-8). While few (if any) teams have a bunch of tall sf like that many teams have two sf with size and better scorers than those of the Pistons.
Brent Barry was 6-7 and that's taller than Anderson. It's also quite normal to remember good offensive plays better than bad defensive plays.
Also if we would find a quality defensive sf I wouldn't mind letting him start and I'm pretty sure Pop wouldn't mind having him start either. A second unit of RJ and Manu would not be too bad.
Anderson is not 6'4" but 6'6 ". The Spurs website has this to say as far as expectations
Named the Big 12's Player of the Year after a stellar junior campaign at Oklahoma State last season, the 6-foot-6 Anderson is expected to contribute immediately for the Spurs as a backup at both wing positions
To put the minutes situation in perspective. If Parker, Hill, Manu and RJ. Avg 30 min each , that's 120 minutes , add Andersons 20 min ( 10 min for each wing position) = 140 min of a possible 146 minutes (48 min x 3 positions PG,SG,SF) . that leave 6 minutes left max for Hariston and Neal !
I really don't know who Pop plans to start and come of the bench, if he wants to start Hariston so be it, the thing is once he gets sub at the 6 minute mark , he's done for the rest of the game. That's if eveyone else gets the minutes their expected to.
RetardQuote:
Originally Posted by ceperez
Yes and if Hairston or Gee or Neal or Temple or new unknown player X or a combination of those players get 20 minutes that only leaves 6 min to Anderson! Point is Anderson has to earn his minutes. I hope he will. I had the Spurs pick him in that pre draft competition held here and I was happy we picked him. I think he has the biggest upside of the players mentioned above. If he learns the system quickly and improves his D he should get his 20 minutes, but it's not guaranteed.
People keep arguing about the relative merits of players as backup SF or PG/SG and most argue that their favorite is taller.
According to Basketball Reference.com all of the following players are 6'6"---Manu, Anderson, Temple, Gee, Hairston.
While some may make the argument that one or another is a better athelete or has 'freakishly long arms' the fact remains that some defend better and some shoot better. With the exception of Manu, none of them has proved consistently in games that their combined skill set on both offense and defense is better than any of the others.
Pop may be thinking of 'platooning' these guys in games based on matchups and specific need for either shooting or defense during a game. That is what coaches do with role players.
Whether any of them can step up from role player to rotational player is not known now. Rating the players based on their ability to make that leap to multi-dimensional players who will make the leap from role to rotational, my guess is this:
Temple: Already proved himself to Pop in playoffs. Who ever heard of Pop playing a untested rookie in playoff games? My guess is he is already penciled into the rotation.
Anderson: Guy is a proven shooter with range and has a lot of athleticism. Will take him time for rookie adjustment, but he could develop quickly if he can prove defensive ability via athleticism.
Gee: Reminds me of Bonzi Wells with bulky build for rebounds, driving lane and post up. Needs better handle and consistent jumper. I think his atleticism keeps him in mix for time, but having some trouble at point.
Hairston: Athleticism and defensive hustle. Can't spread the floor at the 3 cause he isn't a 3 pt. threat. Not the second coming of Bruce Bowen. Situational player.
Anderson is listed 6'-6" (I'm thinking more like 6'-5.5" honestly) there really are how many 6'-9" or taller small forwards in the nba? 19 total, fewer than one per team though they are not distributed that way. Many of them are 6'-9" the way Anderson and Temple are 6'6" where some one didn't press down their hair when measuring. We have a 6'7" SF to play the majority of minutes when one of them is on the floor. The average height of of all 80 small forwards in the NBA on espn comes out to 6'7.47853 inches. Most of them 6'9" and over aren't that terrifying either.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSteffo
Dorell Wright
Marvin Williams
Hedo Turkoglu (old nonathletic mainly a catch and shoot threat at range)
Peja Stojakovic (old nonathletic mainly a catch and shoot threat at range)
Vladimir Radmanovic
Tayshaun Prince (a threat at times)
Jeff Pendergraph
Dominic McGuire
Andrei Kirilenko (Occasional big game)
James Johnson
Alexander Johnson
Gordon Hayward (decent)
Donte Greene
Danilo Gallinari
Kevin Durant (this one is very good)
Mike Dunleavy
Luol Deng
Omri Casspi
Luke Babbitt
Anderson will be playing a fair amount of small forward. I expect that to be his primary spot with some time at shooting guard. Neal is a smaller shooting guard / combo guard. They both have a pretty good jumper and 3 ball but they do not make each other redundant. They will be unlikely to both be on the floor at the same time being new to the spurs system and NBA rookies as well as making for a small overall line-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
I personally expect Temple to be in the line-up and rotation alot. I think we'll see Temple with a combo of Hill or Neal, and RJ.
Good job but I don't think this list is complete. For example, Jonas Jerebko 6-10 started 73 games for the Pistons last season, most of them at sf when Prince was injured. A. Daye of Pistons is 6-11 but very skinny and was regarded as a sf when drafted (he even plays some sg!). I think some tall but skinny combo-forwards who spend lot of their time at sf are missing from that list. Either way 6'5.5'' would still be undersized compared to the average and Anderson should have problems defending all the strong athletic 6'8'' sf as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnrath
Maybe the F.O. has seen something special in Neal, but I also think that is signing is a little weird...considering we still don't have the famous athletic "long three" for guarding the strong sf or the fast pf that a lot of nba teams have.
One player worth consideration for this role (if Gist doesn't fit) that's still in the market could be Singleton...
While it would be ideal to have a gotten a Bowen type 6'8 defensive SF. FO made the call considering who was available to go for better talent over simply filling a need. And drafted Anderson instead of a Damion James. It also made it priority to get back RJ rather than a lesser talent but maybe more defensive player like Barnes. I think the thinking is unless you're going to get a real talent like Ariza , you are better of setling with RJ rather than a Barnes. Same goes with the draft pick unless you can guarantee a Damion James can be a rotation guy immediately you're better of going for the better immediate talent in Anderson, and hope he learns how to play D. Your chances are always better to put talent on the court even if there undersized or not great defenders and teach them to play D rather than put limited players on the court ( we got nowhere with bogans). You still have a better chance at hurting LA and Lamar odom with anderson matched up against him rather than Hariston for a 5 min stretch.
I certainly think that could be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by venitian navigator
Neal must have been a highly rated college baller given the numbers he was posting... then the ugly legal problems arise. So he doesn't get drafted due to all the controversy, goes to Europe. Keeps posting numbers. 3 seasons consecutively, top scorer. So we bring him over, just to be sure - and he posts big numbers.
They might well think he would have been a good draft prospect, lost his way but hasn't lost that ability, has kept it warm for 3 seasons, and now we can exploit it, and cheaply.
Yeah right the likely SF backup is Hariston, and the Spurs are high on him :blah. So high that they let him walk :blahQuote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
I stand by what I said. I believe he was the likely primary SF backup (in tandem with Anderson) and the Spurs are high on him. It's not like they cut him. They released him because he had a better situation lined up and they didn't want to prevent him from taking that.Quote:
Originally Posted by analyzed
Exception: Finley from last year :bangQuote:
Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper
The best thing about Neal and Anderson is that neither are one dimensional. Bogans was just a "defender" and Mason was "off the dribble" 3 point shooter.
Neal although known as a shooter, he can score in multiple ways and is a much better dribbler than Mason.
Anderson can score multiple ways and has the size to be a decent defender. That is why I would cringe when Pop brought in the BMB (Bonner, Mason, Bogans) line up; because if their one dimension wasn't working they were useless on the court.
So in my opinion Anderson/Neal > Bogans/Mason
Thank god Bogans and Mason are gone. Fuckin' scrubs
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedT
amen brother but bonner makes it 2/3
Anderson-Neal V.S Bogans-Mason would be dominated by Anderson by himself. In a 2 on 2 matchup, Bogans could only guard one of them. The other would torch Mason. That is why Bogans-Mason was/ is a horrible lineup. Bogans might not be bad to bring back but it has to be with the right lineup.
I'll take an unproven duo in Anderson/Neal over a proven bunch of scrubs.
Bogans and Mason were painful. Both were one dimensional players and the one area that was their specialty, they were below average at it.
I'm actually expecting something great out of Anderson. As far as Neal, as long as he's not another Marcus Haislip signing, I'll be fine with him. Both seem to be great at shooting which is what Bogans and Mason weren't last year. I don't think Anderson/Neal's defense is as laughable as Bogans/Mason.