Do you honestly think Mahinmi being on the court for 20-25 minutes last night would have changed the outcome? Sorry, I don't see it.
See, this is what I don't get. We may be the most talented defensive team in the league. The Rondo, KG, and Perkins combo is the only one that comes close in my mind. They may very well be a better defensive team than us by year's end simply due to their experience with one another, but talent-wise, we are on par with them. What exactly about a Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Gregg Popovich, George Hill, Antonio McDyess defense do you doubt?
What did you expect? It was Bulls season opener in front of a home crowd and Spurs played the night before (Not arriving to Chicago until 2 AM). They got beat because their legs were gone. I expected nothing from SA on their 1st back to back playing a team that hasnt played yet. All shots were flat (Jefferson especially) and SA was beat in the hustle category... It's not like they played bad defense. Chi shot 41% for the game and scored 92 points. Can't ask more on defense effort except for better rebounding but when your legs aren't conditioned yet that is hard to do...
Bonner isnt a problem starting but Finley is. Bonner can hold his own defensively. and I would rather see Bonner with Duncan next to him than Blair (if Bonner came off the bench)
So chalk last night's loss up to unconditioned legs.... plain and simple... And having Blair pick up 2 quick fouls in the 1st half didn't help...
Ginobili and McDyess are nowhere near great defender and Hill is your backup PG.
When you look at this year's and last year's Spurs roster, it's quite unlikely that Spurs will be significantly better than last year on the defensive end. They should be good but not great.
Maybe I didn't do a good enough clarifying my OP for some of you, so I'll see if I can make this a little clearer.
The point wasn't about one game or an utter inep ude of one player. Some seem to have gathered that I believe Bonner doesn't do an adequate job, for the most part, defensively and that he somehow holds the key to the Spurs' championship aspirations; which I don't.
This was really just a confirmation of something I've believed all along.
The Spurs have huge question marks in the area of a stopper on the wing and another defensive big; that's if you expect this team to be winning a le.
Let me see if I can address a couple of the points I've seen made here..
First off, Bonner.
Does he get to his spots, put in the effort and generally make the opponent take a contested shot?
Yeah, for the most part he does. And if that's all you expect and feel you need from an aging Duncan counterpart, well, good luck with that.
See, some too often get caught up in the minutia to see the actual bigger picture. Making arguments about someones adequacy only negates the bigger question and worries. Duncan, at this point in his career, needs the defensive burden lessened on him. The old status quo just isn't feasible anymore. You can't expect him to be your sole shot blocker and defensive anchor, while remaining the force he needs to be offensively for the team to win at the highest level. The guy needs to be fresh and healthy come playoff time or you're going to see another Division Championship and early ouster.
Bonner and Blair aren't your answer to lessening the burden defensively and 'Dyess even if an upgrade, is thirty-five, in need of managed-minutes and only a solid defensive counterpart for Duncan; he's actually a step down compared to KT when it comes to actually defending the post.
Since I mentioned Blair, lets go to that point.
I stated early on that DeJuan should be watching as much tape on Chuck Hayes as possible. They're of a similar size and center of gravity, and there's really no one better than Hayes in the post defensively at his size.
But becoming that kind of player is going to take time. Blair's never been the great defender I've seen mentioned. He's got great feet and strength, and those long arms will only help in his quest to become a solid defender, but he's also a notoriously foul-prone player who also happens to be a rookie; pinning your hopes on Blair being the answer defensively, this year, after watching the Rockets success last year, just isn't all that wise or even fair to DeJuan.
Blair should be looked at as an X-factor coming off the bench and asked to be nothing more than what he is; a huge asset on the boards and on the offense, but a defensive liability against the elite-level teams.
And to the notion that: The initial defense was good, they just didn't secure the rebound.
Yeah, as the Chuckster likes to say, 'It was a successful surgery but the patient died.'
Like I mentioned in my OP and made mention to in one of my following posts, the Spurs are going to be a pretty solid defensive team looking at the numbers. They've got Duncan, a great system based on playing the percentages, and an attention to detail that will aid them on their way to being among the top of the league defensively, by the numbers, at the end of the year; at least in the lesser points allowed category.
What seems inevitable, if things remain the same, is that the Spurs will have a hard time defending the initial attack on the perimeter with Jefferson and Finley setting the tone defensively to start games, and Duncan will be asked to carry too much of the load defensively playing alongside a defender and rebounder the quality of Bonner.
I understand Pop's starting of Bonner and Finley, a point I obviously didn't do a great job of highlighting in my OP, but the end-game is what worries me; not a regular-season game or stat that will be rendered meaningless come April and May.
The Jeff Foster idea is a solid one, but I'd still like the Spurs to wait until the deadline and see if anyone else becomes available. But as Bruno mentioned, the acquisition of Foster would include the departure of Finley, which would in turn have the Spurs playing a much better defender at the wing; Hairston preferably.
Bottom line, the two best Spurs perimeter defenders I've seen have been Hill and Hairston. The former plays a backup role and the latter's inactive and not even guaranteed to be on the team for the remainder of the year.
So while RJ is solid on the wing defensively, if not fleet of foot, and Manu is at least adequate on the ball, Mason and Finley just aren't going to aid you all that much on that end.
Their first line of defense on the perimeter, the players receiving the majority of the minutes, is at minimum suspect and their last line of defense on the interior consists of one guy over 6-10 who's an actual shot blocker; not an ideal scenario when the gate's open and the back door is believed to be unlocked.
Big picture, folks.
Take a look at the compe ion the Spurs have to just get out of the West, both in terms of perimeter and front court-play, and I'm not sure how you can honestly make a convincing argument the Spurs have what they need defensively.
No there wasn't a defensive problem to get freaked out about.
Rotations missed on pick and rolls and what not happen this time of year.
there is zero chemistry between the guys cause they have all played MAYBE MAYBE 1 game together.
The defense you guys are wanting doesn't come until about February when they've had LOTS of time together and thats barring an injury that sets a player back a few weeks like a Mason, Manu or Dice.
I think your problem is as the OP, is your making the assumption that Finley and Bonner will start ALL YEAR. They aren't most likely.
Bonner COULD, its a possibility, but most likely Manu will start when he's ready.
Also even if said players START, if they are bad then you sub em out, that simple like Pop has done the first two games. IMO he's had a damn quick hook on Finley in the first quarters.
Understood you perfectly the first time around.
Ibanezsr makes a great point. The Bulls got to alot of extra spots quicker and had a little extra fire in the stomach due to, it is their home opener. Same with the Spurs.
The Spurs aren't as bad as they showed last night, nor are they as good YET as they showed opening night. I think the first couple months will show they are in between for now.
I don't see Bonner starting all year. Like I mentioned earlier, he's basically an innings-eater. Most likely 'Dyess will take over once he's in shape and Pop deem's it wise to start really giving him the lions share of minutes.
The point is, if what I believe is to be true, the Spurs' room for error is razor thin on the front line. Pop's fully aware of how taxing it is on Tim to play alongside Bonner for extended amounts of time, but he must feel it's a necessary evil to contend with in order to have both Tim and 'Dyess at the finish line. Pop's been praised for his uncanny ability to have the pulse of his team, but he's definitely going to need it to know exactly when to pull the trigger as he tries to buy time and massage minutes.
Rotations obviously shorten come playoff-time, but you still need three, and preferably four, solid bigs.
The question is whether the Spurs have their third and fourth quality bigs to be depended upon, playing against the Lakers or even Blazers; that's assuming their first two are healthy and not worn down by the time they get there.
Are you sure?
Because I'll fight through the carpal-tunnel if I have to; I'm a message board soldier.
Defensively, we were very poor on opening night.
Something that was pointed out not just by some of us, but Pop himself.
Which is exactly why threads like this come to be.
Yep, I distilled that first post down to one name, Foster.Are you sure?
Because I'll fight through the carpal-tunnel if I have to; I'm a message board soldier.
The problem with clarifying one long, detailed, nuanced post with another equally as long is that you haven't made it any easier for those that lost you the first time around.
You might want to try shorter posts, bullet points, and, if nothing else works, cartoons.
First half like last night they were good defensively and they relaxed in the second half.
Last night they were good defensively in the first half but not as good in the second half but BETTER than they were in the second half of the game vs New Orleans.
good stuff on the last sentence, that being said, trying to acquire Foster is a fight in futility. First off, is he available? Doubtful the Pacers are quite fond of him. Second, would he fix the problems? Again I have my doubts, I just dont think he's someone that does anything better than guys like McDyess or Ratliff.
Cartoons...
I like the way you think.
But since I'm not savvy enough with this here computer or the interwebs, I'll just have to settle for my FAIL.
It's not that hard... see, like this:Cartoons...
I like the way you think.
But since I'm not savvy enough with this here computer or the interwebs, I'll just have to settle for my FAIL.
^ ^ Blackjack approves.
I wouldn't make a trade anytime soon. They really don't know what they have, yet. By the time they play the Lakers in January, the answers to several critical questions should be clearer:
1. How's Tim holding up?
2. How's Manu holding up?
3. How well have Dice and RJ been integrated into the system? (I'm not too worried about this one).
4. Has Blair shown enough to be trusted with rotation minutes come the playoffs?
5. Have one of Bogans or Hairston emerged as a defensive wing?
and
6. Who are the most desperate teams and what players are they looking to unload?
As to Foster v. Dice and Ratliff. We need someone in addition to Tim and Dice capable of playing 20-25 mpg. I don't believe Ratliff is that man. While Foster may not be much better for short bursts, he is, IMO, a legitimate rotation big while Ratliff is not.
I'd still wait until January at the earliest. Foster may never be on the market and a much better player may be available.
Everyone knows the real season for the Spurs doesn't start until Pop says so. Late november?
i just know that he need to play, we need to use his size, athleticism, youth and energy.
No they don't. The talent we have ac ulated for both perimeter and interior D is some of the best in the league. I hate to keep harping on this point but what you are saying here just doesn't make sense. The Cavs were spectacular defensively last year with half the talent running our same exact schemes (with two undersized guards too!). The Magic were great too and all they had was Dwight effectively. We have so much more than that but you want every single player to be a defensive stopper somehow. No team in the league is like that.
Now thats silly. Duncan's knees aren't going to give out because Bonner is playing rather than Dice. I also think you are vastly underestimating Tim Duncan and overestimating his decline. He won a championship with a much worse defensive frontline just 2 years ago, and he can do it again.
But you are making it sound like we have no frontline players that can help Tim defend. Tim has more help in that respect than he has ever had. Once again, you are making an argument based on the assumption of the lack of talent in our players and I simply can't agree.
You want us to ask him to be a defensive liability? No, DeJuan has to improve and he will. I didn't say he will be Chuck Hayes just yet. But I do think he will be a solid defender by years end.
What are you measuring our defense with then? How are we going to be a great defensive team by the numbers but bad otherwise? What?
And it does matter that we defended the initial possession well. That means we rotated well and played the defensive schemes correctly. Offensive rebounds are really hard to defend against because, as I said, the rebounder usually already has position. We ran the defensive schemes correctly. Thats a good thing.
Jefferson played very well defensively.
Oh come on now. Hype on the new guys gets so out of hand sometimes. If you think Hairston is a better perimeter defender than Richard Jefferson, Tony Parker, or Manu Ginobili, you don't know basketball.
Well, the crimson blur, I'm going to try an heed my friend Mel_13's advice.
Who guards Kobe and the Lakers' front line; successfully that is?
Big picture.
If you don't mind a Laker fan interjecting I have to say great posts by the OP and conversation by all that evolved from it.
You shouldn't have to break it down, I understood that from the very beginning. That's the bottomline and I'm curious to how SA addresses it. Without a roster move, SA is respected by LA but not feared anymore than anyone else in the West for those very 2 reasons.
Can't stop Kobe and can't stop their front line, how possibly does SA beat the Lakers and go for their 5th? A shootout is a failure and they don't have the players to do what SA has traditionally did best.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
