Anderson Will Surprise alot of people..... I think he has a Bright Career In The NBA
Printable View
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.