Anderson-Neal vs Bogans-Masson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrSteffo

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?


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).

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gagnrath

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.

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by venitian navigator

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.

---

I certainly think that could be the case.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

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.

---

Yeah right the likely SF backup is Hariston, and the Spurs are high on him :blah. So high that they let him walk :blah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analyzed

Yeah right the likely SF backup is Hariston, and the Spurs are high on him :blah. So high that they let him walk :blah

---

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 Amuseddaysleeper

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING could be worse than Bogans and Mason from last year.

---

Exception: Finley from last year :bang

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

Thank god Bogans and Mason are gone. Fuckin' scrubs

---

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.