If the Spurs do that and shoot at their normal rate they win this series.
Printable View
If the Spurs do that and shoot at their normal rate they win this series.
D was so much better in the 2nd half. At the end of the day it is 1-1. Nobody said 2nd round playoff series are supposed to be easy. We did some good things in the 2nd half the intensity was better on D. We need to get 1 in GS. There is a Long way to go.
It is so obvious it's how we won game 1 and how we got back in this one. If only our dumbshit coach realized it sooner.
I would like to know the +/- when we play small ball in this series, tbh. I say we're up 15/20 pts.
Bonner played just 3 minutes in the 2nd half, that's why our D was better
The first half D was extremely frustrating to watch. They played right into the strength of the Warriors. Its really not that hard to figure out how to beat this team and you saw it in the 2nd half tonight so hopefully the Spurs learn form that first half debacle. Really was a shit fest.
Hey, let's ignore our best defensive lineup and try to play tiny2006ball against a team that has jump shooters AND size.
this x1000000000......why are other teams always dictating how we should playQuote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
I knew going into this series there would be trouble, because our perimeter defenders leave shooters far too often. You CAN NOT leave Klay Thompson open. Period. If the Spurs continue to do that, they will lose the series in 5. They did a great job adjusting on Curry, now they have to do the same with Thompson. This is one of the rare times when I would rather give a team a look at a layup than a 3. Those dudes are automatic when open.
Open your eyes son, Golden state will run circles around Duncan, Splitter, Diaw, Bonner, Blair and Baynes if we play two of them at the same time. BTW, what size does Golden State have besides Bogut and that scrub backup center? If Golden state beat us by posting up Jack and Barnes, so be it. I would rather take my chance with that than Curry/Thompson doing whatever they want on pick and roll situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
3 minutes too much especially with Diaw around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
Stay attached to Thompson and Curry. Do not help on defense.
Open your eyes, Diaw/Splitter are better than Neal vs guards, that small lineup don't give us any advantageQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
When the other team has better mismatches over your regular lineup you have to adjust.Quote:
Originally Posted by thOOdee
Small ball won game 1, small ball got them back into game 2 and should've won it.
We never tried our regular lineup against GS.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
Duncan or Splitter need to be in the game at all times. Like the OP said, " Switch and stay with the shooters." Why the hell is there still doubling going on? If Spurs hit some shots down the stretch, and Spurs are going to Oakland up 2-0.
As criticized as Pop is for starting Neal, I completely understand it because of the need for us to go small. People are saying Pop needs to realize we've played our best in this series when going small, but doing so means either Neal, Patty, or Nando needs to start. Personally, I prefer Neal due to his skill set. A starting lineup of parker, neal, green, kawhi, and Duncan wouldn't surprise me at all in the next game because that's what may be required. We just don't have a better option that Neal right now, because our big lineups are getting us buried
The doubling comes from Parker being switched onto Barnes when Kawhi is on Curry. Though Barnes isn't a superstar by any means, he is more than capable of scoring on Tony in the low block. What I don't understand is why can't we employ a strategy where Kawhi stays on Curry, Parker on Thompson, and Green on Barnes? This way, less doubling has to happen and there won't be any huge mismatches
what bigs lineups? Bonner and Diaw are a perimeter players. Blair is too short. TD/Tiago I don't think they've played a single minute so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurSwag
We tried that. Thompson either shoots over Parker or gets a pick and goes right around him and straight to the rack. Our pick and roll defense just isn't very good, and playing small means we don't rebound for shit either.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurSwag
Lineups with Tim/Bonner or Tim/Diaw. Though they may not play big, they aren't fast enough to stick with Barnes/Green. When it comes down to it though, the problem is definitely all the double teaming which stems from parker having to guard barnes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Same argument as in 2006: When the Spurs had their regular lineup, they beat the Warriors. We haven't seen the Spurs' regular lineup yet and the Spurs are getting skull-fucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
Thompson fouling out and a bunch of lucky three point shooting kept small ball from going down 0-2.Quote:
Originally Posted by T Park
:lol Bonner in "a big lineup".Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurSwag
you know what i mean :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
he might not play big but he moves big unfortunately
No, I don't. The Spurs have yet to run anything approaching a "big" lineup. Bonner was in the game against the Lakers to foul Dwight Howard, and he sort of did a good job at that. Now he's starting, passing up threes, not rebounding, giving up and-ones, being slung around by guards and looking surprised that he doesn't get calls.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurSwag
BTW, I'm mystified at people saying the big lineups "aren't fast enough" when the four guard lineups keep getting burned on fast breaks because they can't get back on defense. Duncan/Splitter/Leonard have had zero trouble getting back on D this year.
Diaw and Splitter can do well defending guards ocassionally when they switch on pick and rolls but in no way should we have them guarding guards at all times. Bigs tend to feel atracted to the paint and that wouldn't go with the plan of staying home with the shooters, not to mention the lack of spacing/shooting/speed that the Spurs would have on offense by playing with two bigs instead of another wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
It's no coincidence that the Spurs have made their biggest runs in both games while playing small.
Pop needs to have someone face-guard Klay Thompson AT ALL TIMES. Never leave this guy's side.
Where they do have size is on the perimeter with guys like Thompson, Barnes and Green.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
The Spurs can't play better small ball than the Warriors for 48 minutes. They're going to need to rely on their bigs/defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Small ball is a gimmick for scoring lots of points in a hurry but the Spurs are not going to win this series by playing 48 minutes of small ball. They're just not athletic enough. If the Nuggets couldn't do it, there's no way the Spurs can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
We defend them better by playing small ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
Are you even watching the same game. this Spurs team needs to get it's identity back and that's certainly not going small. Defense is the key .Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
The last thing this spurs team needs is more of Gary Neal cocking up or Harrison Barnes posting Tony Parker.
You want proof the effect Tiago splitter has on this warriors team go watch the start of 4th up until he got subbed out.The guy was a presense and had Curry scrambling. TNT did a 4 successive plays straight after which had Tiago involved in every-one of them. Tunnel vision Spurs fans will focus on that missed dunk.
P'n'R defense wont work if it's TD on the switch out on the perimeter. Play him with Tiago defending the PnR and Duncan back to rim protecting.
Pop's gone away from this team's strenth. Spurs can't outgun this warriors team.
Thats how Pop likes to roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by thOOdee
This is why there is no fear in the warriors right now. Why should they be afraid they are playing their game. Spurs should forcing them to be worried about how they are going to play against the Spurs.
Yes, I'm watching the games. The games in which the Spurs have played better defense and have outscored the Warriors by 25 pts whenever they go small. What games have you been watching?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy
And I'm sorry but that Duncan/Spliter/pick and roll defense argument you brought is just retarded. You can't select which big defends the pick roll and which one protects the basket, the ofense decides that by selecting who sets the pick, if it's the big that Duncan is guarding Duncan will have to be the one that defends the pick and roll wheter you like or not and I don't know how much rim protection the other big could be doing when he would need to stay on the perimeter guarding a three point shooter, either that or allow a wide open three, and I don't know if you have been paying attention but leaving guys alone on three point territory hasn't been working for us, tbh.
With that said, I agree with the premise of starting Spliter and Duncan toghether to give us the chance of seeing if the team that played toghether for most of the year can do well but if things start going downhill you have to press the small ball buton very early in the game.
When they are outplaying/exposing you the way these Warriors have been doing to us, you have to change things up. The teams that are being outplayed are the ones that need to adjust, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by thOOdee
Did the 2010 champ lakers ever go small to match their opponents or did they shove their 2 bigs down the other teams throats? Force THEM to adjust. Bonner shouldn't be in a small ball lineup because he can't defend perimeter guys. Bonner is our answer against teams that want to throw 2 bigs at us, as he creates issues for their defense. Diaw should get the minutes as the 1st big off the bench
I would agree, but the spurs have been running a system all year with our two "best" bigmen, and they have yet to see the floor together at the same time to even be exposed. So I don't think the answer to small ball is even smaller ball, at least without going with what what got you to the playoffs to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
They imposed their 2 bigs 'cause A) They went for offensive rebounds unlike our soft asses that run to the defensive side of the floor before even taking the shot by design and B) 'cause their 2 bigs where among the best 3/4 bigmen in the bussines. That's not the case with our past prime, sick Tim Duncan and our role playing Tiago Splitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lolYou didn't watched the game hum? Our offense looked like shit playing small, our guards just stand in the corner, there is no movement, just isoball.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
And our defense looked like shit playing small. There is no advantage.
Bigs set screens, bigs move without the ball, bigs know how to play help defense, OUR bigs are quick enough to stay in front of guards. But hey let's ignore the best defensive lineup in the NBA and play small with Neal:lmao.
2nd half D was good as the spurs were able to limit them to 38 points and gave up 62 points in the first half.
In the second Pop started with Tony, Neal, Green and Tim and stayed with small ball 'till there were 8:07 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter where he inexplically inserted Bonner for Green, in that span San Antonio outscored Golden State 35 to 24 which means that small ball allowed GS only 24 pts in 16 minutes of play. Just to give you an idea in this same game GS scored 28 in the first (so 12 minutes) against the Spurs playing two conventional bigs at all times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
In game 1 Pop introduced small ball with 4:31 remaining in the third and stay with 'till the end of the game in that Span the Spurs outscored GS 60 to 51 in 26:31 minutes of play, in the same game Golden State scored 76 pts in about 30 minutes against the Spurs big line-up.
So please tell me more about how our defense and the team in general sucks more by playing small ball. :wakeup
Ignoring the 1st half:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
lol 3 minutes of small ball in the first half. Ok count that if you want. The Spurs still outscore and defend better with small ball line-ups than traditional ones. So now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
How do u know that? We didn't play our traditional onesQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Tim and Tiago need to start together. We aren't getting good looks with small ball, it just isn't happening. If they wanna guard Tiago or Tim with a SF we should be able to shove the ball inside and enforce our gameplan on offense. If they think they can take advantage of it then let them try. Right now Pop is basically betting that our terrible looks on offense can beat their 40 percent shooting on threes. If we all agree that they're gonna shoot about 40 percent from three as a team regardless of who we send at them, then we should try to maximize the looks we get by you know, maybe RUNNING THE SHIT WE'VE RUN ALL SEASON.
Pop has let them get away with curry and jack...two of the smallest guys on either team. He has dome nothing to get those guys on the block and punish them down low. But then again, Pop never deviates from the system. Whether the lineup is small or big, the same plays are always run. so by going small, guys are running plays out of position.
Jacking up a lot of shots or putting guys who get their own shots on the floor is a gimmick. The Spurs' offense relies on ball movement, which isn't there because there are no bigs. The lack of offense is magnified by the inability to get stops, which, again is because of lack of size in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
using game 1 as reference is stupid. You need to realise that was a lucky win for the spurs. spurs players have comfirmed the same. That GS team gave the game away with Curry gassed and Clay Thompson fouling out. Goin small means trying to outgun and outmuscle their smalls who are essentially more athletic, bigger and better shooters than spurs smalls. The same smalls who also have showen to be mistake prone defending. You would play into GS hands, playing warriors style basketball hoping they choke again. They came into game 2 full of confidence and got the win so it aint happening again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Your use of small ball stats are misleading, just fooling yourself really.Coach jackson has already stated he will match-up with Pop. When Pop went with Diaw as starter , GS went with Eziely. When Pop went with Bonner , jackson went with SF Barnes. Using the pop went with coventional bigs arguement doen't fly since Jackson looks at Bonner as a perimeter player and we all know what defense he offers. IF splitter starts Ezily or Landry will start. Doesn't matter what GS does on offense . You have Splitter guard their best picker in Bogut when Ezily is out there. If they go with Landry , then that's splitter's man. It's not that complicated.
we both on the same page then.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
we both on the same page then.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
:rollin:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
They missed A LOT of open jumpers, tbh. At the end of the 4th they couldn't buy a basket and we were playing small. Or did you miss that part? I think this had more to do with GS shooting than Spurs' defense, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
But, FWIW:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Once again, any lineup with Matt Bonner is not smallball, it's slowterribledefensenoreboundingnoshotblockingball, but it is NOT smallball. Bonner is not quick in any way and doesn't change matchups aside from giving the guys he checks a boner as they post him up or shoot over him.
He wanted Splitter and Duncan together. EDIT: he already said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
Exactly, that small ball D was fluke, the big ball D was for real.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
......Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
Staying home is what won the game.. if we just rebounded the ball we'd have won a lot bigger too.
Note how the other quote is after this one. I gave it a better thought and realized that the line-up that played the whole year should be given a chance and go small if that hadn't work or before giving time to Bonner, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
That and they switched too, if I heard right I think Pop acknowledged that at the end of the third.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoldStandard
We shot well but we didn't rebound well so we gave up second chance shots, we didn't hit FT's at a high enough clip. We continue to play this kind of D which we are capable of and hit our FTs and box out and we win the next one by 17
Yeah you lucked out on that one, because I'd have messed with you about the previous quote. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DAF86
:kingQuote:
Originally Posted by Brunodf
^.-Quote:
Originally Posted by DAF86