Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
This, this, this.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
This, this, this.
Spurs will fix there defense this year. addition by substraction with RMJ, and of course the added interior defense that Splitter will bring.
hopefully Bonner doesn't see the light of day on the court. i'll kill myself if i see him out there instead of Blair or Dyess.
Spurs badly needed a perimeter shooter this off-season. They have picked 2 good ones with Neal and Anderson. The problem is that they have never played in the NBA, it's a risky move to trust rookies to solve Spurs shooting struggles. Let's hope at least one will turn well.
Neal could play a relative big role for Spurs in the mold of Mason during the 08-09 regular season.
They need defenders more than they need shooters, and they continue to try to add more shooters, even undersized ones that may not be able to defend.
It's almost as if they have a different coach, than the one that was at the helm for the 4 championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Obviously, you have to score points to win, but it's almost as though the Spurs have completely abandoned the concept of having good defensive players on the roster.
If, as many predict, Neal ends up taking Hairston's roster spot, I guess we'll know that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorSpur
IMO the reason the Spurs are loading up on shooters is the overall lack of perimeter defenders available. Both positions needed to be addressed this off season, but it seems easier to find shooters than defenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
He is alittle of a hot/cold guy - but when he is hot WOW - unlike RMJ he can hit any three (off dribble, catch&shoot, transition) and range is no issue - if you see much video of him many of the threes he shoots are well behind line - also realize he shot the pct as primary scorer and despite defense playing to take the 3pt shot away from himQuote:
Originally Posted by mingus
The best thing about Neal is that we can use him like RIP and Ray Allen: have him run around the court, through screens, tire out the defenders. Plus I think he is a better dribbler than Mason, so that is a plus.
Spurs defense will never get back to what it was. not even close to what it was. Making up for it offensively is only the correct mindset. Not saying that it shouldn't be first priority still (it should) but the spurs have to sign guys who can put the ball in the hoop because it will never be what it was 5 years ago. No matter who they sign.
The shooting has improved quite a bit and their attempts are way up, and they've slid down the rankings at the same time. More shooters and more shooting doesn't seem to be helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjktkk
I think they have enough scoring - Duncan, Manu, healthy Parker, Hill, Splitter, RJ's 8 playoff points, Dice, Blair (if Pop plays him). The only defense they've addressed is the interior - hopefully with Splitter. They need more defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedT
After that sweep in the playoffs, I felt as if the Spurs were GSW or Suns. Spurs scored over 100 in 3 games - 102, 102, 96 and 101. That's enough scoring - problem is they couldn't stop the Suns - 111, 110, 110 and 107. What's perturbing to me, is that not only are they going for scoring but undersized scoring. How many SGs can the Spurs have? There is not one position that they have size - even the front line - no 7 footers.
What 7 footer is going to come in and earn playing time over Duncan,Splitter,Dice,Blair and Bonner? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Duncan and Splitter are plenty big for the C position. SF is the biggest question mark regarding size because we are going to need excellent rebounding from that position. Blair is an exception... while he hurts us defensively with his size it doesn't necessarily affect his rebounding ability. It would definitely be nice to be bigger but who?
They aren't just going to sign a guy at the SG or SF position because hes tall. They like the way Neal can shoot and handle the ball so they signed him. Tell me someone with great size who can shoot the ball like he can and handle the ball like he can... same with George Hill. It's not like the Spurs are intentionally going small but at the same time they aren't going to give guaranteed money away and a roster spot to another player because he is tall and let a player they see potential in go play elsewhere.
All I ask if for either Anderson or Neal to shoot the 3 like Reggie Miller is that too much to ask.
If it doesn't get to at least half of what it was, then we won't be sniffing a championship anytime soon either.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedT
The Spurs did try to find a replacement for Bowen. First it was Udoka, and last year it was the centerpiece. Neither did even a passable job. I think the Spurs are going the route of grooming their own now. Hill can be up and down defensively, especially because he's just getting his feet wet in the league. Temple, Hairston and Gee are just projects. But they all put forth the effort to work hard to learn the system and play defense as best they can. And with the limited resources we have, it's all you can ask for right now.
I would have loved if the Spurs would have been able to acquire Battier, Artest, Ariza or Bell in the past, but half those guys don't even want to come to play here.
Look at how much their shooting has improved the last four years over the previous four. If they don't improve their defense they literally can't improve shooting enough to make up for it. They could shoot better than any team ever has and it still wouldn't make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedT
That's faulty logic. "We can't defend like we used to, so may as well try to turn into the Suns". Just because Bruce Bowen is gone doesn't mean the Spurs need to abandon what got them there in the first place. Defense wins championships. There's a reason the Spurs always used to destroy the Suns.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedT
The Spurs may not be able to turn the clock back on Duncan, or coax Bowen out of retirement, but they can still make an effort to recruit solid perimeter defenders as well as interior to help shore up the D as a whole. Defense is about effort but it helps to have the right players/tools to make it happen. Malik Hairston has the potential to be a good defender but it would be a shame if he loses minutes to player that is one dimensional a la' Roger Mason. The Spurs have enough one trick ponies. They should stick to playing big and continuing to find the pieces that can make this team a respectable defensive unit, even if their defense isn't as elite as it used to be.
i know its pretty sad, but i think its because timmys decline in the paint thats the only valid reason that comes to mind. if you think about it with 3pt players ready to knock em down timmy will not have those help defenders around him in the paint so if passed to he can do his thing on single coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
i also believe theyre waiting to assess tiagos play down low and if he is dominant :ihit we can pretty much stop all this small ball /3pt crap weve been playing. and our whole team will become much much better
In the best of circumstances a team will shoot 60% from the field for 2. Thats 120 points per 100 shots. A good night from 3 is 40%. Thats also 120 points per 100 shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
The three pointer is just as viable statistically.
No that is not tooooooo much to ask :lol:lol:depressedQuote:
Originally Posted by Waps1980
As I've stated before.
There is more to having a knock down shooter on the floor than hitting 3's.
When you completely discount free throw attempts and the pressure that twice as many rebounds off missed shots put on your defense, that logic almost works, but you also have to disregard the fact that teams that shoot too many threes watch their percentage plummet. Nobody has ever won games counting on shooting 40 percent from three point range. Even if the Spurs were able to hit that kind of a percentage, it still wouldn't make up for their lack of defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
The two sets up the three. Always has, always will. It's not a weapon when you're using it to try to keep up with the other team because you can't stop them.
Matt Bonner shoots a better percentage from three point range than most anyone, and I don't hear him being heaped with praise for the great job he does of keeping defenders out of the paint, so either the three point shooters aren't doing what you want them to do or the Spurs aren't taking advantage of it inside. My personal opinion is that the problem lies on the other end of the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Curse
Long shots lead to long rebounds and easy baskets for the other team. Especially if team shooting is not a very good rebounding team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solid D
Why someone hasn't put together the fact that, simply by stepping a few feet inside the 3 point line, a player's shot percentage increases drastically enough to justify the "loss" of points between a 3 and a long jumper... is all beyond me.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Spurs are working toward a seamless transition from the Duncan era, and potentially the Parker area as well. I'd be shocked if the Spurs missed the second round after Duncan, and would be even more shocked if they didn't put up a fight. Neal may very well not turn out, but he could just as easily become another Jarren Jackson. Low risk, high reward. And all it takes is for a few of those risks to pan out and the Spurs have themselves a decent post-season run.