Rotation down the stretch ...

So in the fourth quarter, Gary Neal has a hand in 12 straight points. With four and a half minutes remaining, Pop subs out Neal for George Hill. The Spurs don't hit a field goal the rest of the game and only score two points on free throws.

That decision doesn't make much sense to me. Hill was a disaster most of the night on the offensive end. If he wasn't missing a shot, he was hesitating when wide open. Manu looked tired so it wasn't much of a surprise he couldn't generate offense.

The Spurs needed a playmaker on the court. Neal was making plays. If Parker isn't going to play (illness, I assume), the Spurs could have used someone who could have broken down Minny's weak defense. And hell, if Bonner is going to actually rebound, might as well have his offense out there on the court.

It was odd to me that the complete stagnation of the offense almost cost the Spurs the game yet there was no substitution made to try to solve the issue.

On the other hand we couldn't stop nobody. I guess after we built a little cushion pop felt like hill on the perimeter would help to protect our lead and hill made a few clutch plays late against indiana so I sort of see pops logic.

Looks to me he thought the separation was finally given to the team and he's was looking to lock down the game with what he believed was his best defensive unit.

Defense.

neal plays above avg defense, thats good enough to close out games, then again this is the shitty wolves we talkn about here...

That sub is simply a bad decision to me.

What was Hill doing on the defensive end that made it mandatory to keep him in the game? The T'Wolves were putting Ridnour in pick-and-rolls and Hill wasn't doing anything special in defending those plays. I could see if Hill was defending a hot scorer but Hill's not exactly a great pick-and-roll defender, as the Spurs unfortunately saw too clearly against the Suns in the playoffs . . .

If Pop doesn't believe Parker's an option and he believes -- as you suggested -- that Manu is tired or tiring, I don't think you want to make Neal into your primary or secondary ballhandler, especially when they're turning the ball over against a team as poor as the Wolves are defensively.

Maybe Pop really doesn't want to coach the all star game...

Except for experience or TP's sickness, there is absolutely nothing to justify Hill presence in the last 6 minutes, nothing at all.

See. I told yall Hill was playing like shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

What was Hill doing on the defensive end that made it mandatory to keep him in the game? The T'Wolves were putting Ridnour in pick-and-rolls and Hill wasn't doing anything special in defending those plays. I could see if Hill was defending a hot scorer but Hill's not exactly a great pick-and-roll defender, as the Spurs unfortunately saw too clearly against the Suns in the playoffs . . .

---

Yeah. The Spurs are lucky that Wolves didn't make the open 3 from that double screen. The game could have been tied.

He's up and down. He actually looked like he was on the verge of a breakthrough but has been spotty since.

But he did come up with a big shot late against Indiana and I'm sure the combination of that and maybe an ailing Parker and tired Ginobili, led to him going with Hill down the stretch -- best potential defender and ballhandler available and it could pay dividends down the road if Hill comes through again, building that confidence.

Read my mind. I was looking for Neal and couldn't find him.

It would make some sense to me that with the standings being what they are, Pop is trying to put George into some situations like these and using the results as an opportunity to do some teaching while giving George some experience trying to make the right decisions. A loss here or there won't necessarily torpedo the Spurs and it's basically indisputable that Pop will occasionally make decisions that aren't meant to win games in the here-and-now, and with a big lead in the division and conference, the temptation might be strong for him.

Of course, it might just be a poor decision without any sort of big picture premeditation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

If Pop doesn't believe Parker's an option and he believes -- as you suggested -- that Manu is tired or tiring, I don't think you want to make Neal into your primary or secondary ballhandler, especially when they're turning the ball over against a team as poor as the Wolves are defensively.

---

This.

Although Neal was playing great he is not a playmaker or good enough ball handler so I think bringing in Hill was a good move. My question is who would have been out there if Tony was healthy.

I thought the same thing. Why take out the only player making shots down the stretch?

Pop's thrown out questionable rotations the last 5 games or so, nothing new here.

Another win despite Pop's coaching, not because of it?

As a spectator/fan you can see the reasons in a lot of coaching moves, however, that's been difficult lately with Pop. Some bush-league decision making lately IMO, but the wins keep piling up.
Escaping with a win against the mighty Timberwolves is nice, but I'd feel better if we we're playing well - as the season rolls on, we seem to be playing worse.

I was wondering why Neal wasn't playing as well. This isn't the first time I've been worried about making shots when he's been taken out. The beginning of the 4th quarter seemed odd too, with RJ as the only starter I believe. We lost a 9 point cushion pretty quickly. Can't complain about the d in the end...won us the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bringdown

Another win despite Pop's coaching, not because of it?

As a spectator/fan you can see the reasons in a lot of coaching moves, however, that's been difficult lately with Pop. Some bush-league decision making lately IMO, but the wins keep piling up.
Escaping with a win against the mighty Timberwolves is nice, but I'd feel better if we we're playing well - as the season rolls on, we seem to be playing worse.

---

Did you really expect the spurs to keep shooting lights out like they did the 1st couple of weeks? The same wide open looks are there, they just are not hitting those same shots as much. It happens in any sport..As far as the pop rotation goes, I think you have bitching about Pop for years and yes, the wins just keep on coming so therefore proceed to keep bitching.

To see the potential a player like Hill has and to see him play like bullshit is completely baffling. C'mon Hill!

whatever...spurs are kicking ass...always bitching about something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SequSpur

whatever...spurs are kicking ass...always bitching about something...

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lol:lol:lol:lo l:lol:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin
:lmao

IMO, Hill is afraid to shoot. That late game shot (and 1) against the Pacers was him driving to get free throws. Unfortunately for us, the shot went in and Popovich was playing him late against MIN to give him more late game experience. Even his 3pter from the corner (which was money) is now shaky. Confidence seems like everything to him.

Play Neal - he's not afraid to shoot.

IMO the guard combination on the floor at the end of a game is not as important as playing TD and Dice together down the stretch. If Gary Neal has a good game, use him in the end, but with either Manu or Tony on the floor.

Hill is our new defensive stopper. He has the potential to be an elite defender in this league. I'd rather have him in the game in the final minutes than Neal...maybe even Parker.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SequSpur

whatever...spurs are kicking ass...always bitching about something...

---

pot calling kettle black.
good troll though

Timvp? Whats up with the quick grades

BTW, is that ur daughter in the display? Shes really cute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

So in the fourth quarter, Gary Neal has a hand in 12 straight points. With four and a half minutes remaining, Pop subs out Neal for George Hill. The Spurs don't hit a field goal the rest of the game and only score two points on free throws.

That decision doesn't make much sense to me. Hill was a disaster most of the night on the offensive end. If he wasn't missing a shot, he was hesitating when wide open. Manu looked tired so it wasn't much of a surprise he couldn't generate offense.

The Spurs needed a playmaker on the court. Neal was making plays. If Parker isn't going to play (illness, I assume), the Spurs could have used someone who could have broken down Minny's weak defense. And hell, if Bonner is going to actually rebound, might as well have his offense out there on the court.

It was odd to me that the complete stagnation of the offense almost cost the Spurs the game yet there was no substitution made to try to solve the issue.

---

Imo, seems to me that Pop treats the entire regular season as a preseason to the playoffs. Wins/losses appear to be rather irrelevant to him.

Game 7, 4 minutes to go, scored tied up, who is more likely to be in the game, Hill or Neal?

Hill, imo. Therefore he gets the PT now to be ready come playoff time.

Or maybe this makes this whole discussion academic.

I know that with the Spurs scoring more and trying to win in the regular season people are amazed and may have forgotten what Pop coaching is like but its pretty obvious to me what these moves (giving the NY game away) are from the experience of watching Pop over the past decade+.

Yeah, somethings are different this season but its clear that Pop isn't all of a sudden D'Antoni. He's still going to look away from rookies at times he shouldn't ("these play..midseason games aren't for Hi..err Neal"), he's going to try to lose games to send messages, and he's going to stick with defense.

Pop has changed some shit, but he's still Pop.

Pop is not going to try and lose games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

he's going to try to lose games to send messages

---

yeah, i'm not seeing that either.

unless it's game 7 in the playoffs, I do think though he'd prefer to see a 79-78 loss if they simply missed shots, but busted ass and played within the system over winning 135-120.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

IMO, Hill is afraid to shoot. That late game shot (and 1) against the Pacers was him driving to get free throws. Unfortunately for us, the shot went in and Popovich was playing him late against MIN to give him more late game experience. Even his 3pter from the corner (which was money) is now shaky. Confidence seems like everything to him.

Play Neal - he's not afraid to shoot.

---

Agree bout Neal on all fronts, although i don't think Hill is afraid to shoot, like a lot of players he tends to shy away from it when missing them. RJ had the same problem last season.

Neals's off the ball movement and simply presenting himself as an option from offensive sets has been fantastic. Pity, he mostly getting ignored or is being used as a decoy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Pop is not going to try and lose games.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

yeah, i'm not seeing that either.

unless it's game 7 in the playoffs, I do think though he'd prefer to see a 79-78 loss if they simply missed shots, but busted ass and played within the system over winning 135-120.

---

The New Yorks Knicks say whats up.

Pop would risk a loss if it makes a point -- as Manny points out, it's happened recently, but it's also happened almost every season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The New Yorks Knicks say whats up.

---

Imo, Pop didn't try to lose that (or any other) game. The win/loss was irrelevant.

The Spurs had been playing crappy defense all game long, he finally had enough and pulled the starters is the way I read that one. Same thing with Tony the other night against the wolves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Pop would risk a loss if it makes a point -- as Manny points out, it's happened recently, but it's also happened almost every season.

---

Risking the loss =/= trying to lose.

the difference is slight, but still a difference.

Players like Neal are rapid scorers. They are like going all in at a hold'em event. You win, cool you doubled up at least and now you can make the bubble and at least get into the money. You don't keep going all in though, because you will eventually lose. Leaving Neal out there as if he was going to go off for 40pts wouldn't be prudent. You got your production from him, you bring your standard back into the game.

If a player like Hill thinks that Pop is going to take his minutes just because he had an off night, he's going to become last year's RJ where he was afraid to risk anything. Hill has been very aggressive this year, and hit or miss, you have to dance with the one that brought you.

I am feeling a udoka sighting anyday now....