Reply With Quote
A good review. The loss to Mavs was a trigger event.
The Spurs have always been known to play with two center system. The back court would play great perimeter defense and funnel their assignments into a wall of 7 footers. That was the basic recipe our league leading defense. It won the Spurs at two championships with David Robinson as the center.
The 3rd championship was arguably one by the heroics of Robert Horry, we beat a superior team in Detroit. However, the Spurs got to the finals by upgrading the team with Nazr Mohammed. That was the tipping point that got us to the top.
Then in 2006 we faced the Dallas Mavericks and that's when the system began to unravel. NBA rules had changed significantly enough that guards like Steve Nash were winning NBA honors. This was a series where the Spurs had trouble matching against with Dirk Nowitzski. This was the series that the Spurs decided to bench our two centers Nazr and Rasho. The two were traded in the following season. That was the end of the successful two headed center play that helped us win 3 championships.
Rasho was traded for Matt Bonner. Nazr turned down a contract extension and signed with the Pistons.
However despite ditching a successful theme. We did surprisingly win against Cleveland a year later. But IMHO, that was a fluke! The Mav's were eliminated by Nellie Ball in the first round that year. While we stole a series from the Suns. Luckily to face a completely green team in the Cavs. The Spurs however still had Robert Horry then that played great shot block help defense and Francisco Elson who was a quick center that ran the floor well. We were also helped by effective play by Oberto who we signed as a free agent a year earlier. Tony Parker had become the dominant scorer for the Spurs and did so mostly from the paint.
Horry two seasons later was sent into retirement. Elson was traded for Kurt Thomas. Bonner was signed an extension and our Scola rights were traded away.
2007-2008 season the Spurs were left with Kurt Thomas and Oberto as our centers. Two undersized 6'10" power forwards with very little shot blocking record to show off. The team had traded length for ruggedness at the center spot. The Spurs reached the WCF against the lakers only to be denied. The team may have won if Ginobili was in better shape.
2008-2009 with the same team Spurs failed miserably. Injuries were to blame.
Fast forward to today. The Spurs have been playing small ball since the 2007 debacle against the Mavericks. The team traded their remaining aged centers Thomas and Oberto for a 6'7" SF in Jefferson. The team signed veteran Ratliff, a euroleague player Haislip and drafted Blair to fill the teams front line gaps.
The Spurs now seem to be playing:
Duncan - now rarely plays power forward and is our exclusive center.
6'10" Bonner though listed at center, hangs around at the perimeter and plays non-existent post up and help defense.
6'6" Blair at Power forward. Has a great offensive game but is a liability at the post defensively.
6'9" McDyess has been taken to school by center Memet Okur in more than several instances.
6'7" Jefferson and 6'7" Finley have now become our PFs. (Note: 6'5" Udoka used to play that spot!)
The team also has a bunch of scrubs that rarely play at 6'11", 6'11" and 6'10". Apparently these players length and quickness aren't important skills in the Spurs game plan.
Which is really interesting, because the Spurs have historically be known as being a boring team that prides itself on solid defensive play. What sort of defensive setup can the team play with having just one center and four under 6'7" players?
Most other contending team has at least two bigs playing at the same time.
Celtics - Perkins and Garnet, Cavs - O'neil and Verejao, Lakers - Bynum and Gasol. There's one exception... the Magic that play Howard and surround him with 6'10" shooting PFs.
Are the Spurs planning to play a different game that everyone else? Can small ball give the opposing team enough match up problems to win it all. Is RJ at PF the Spurs plan to mix it up and change the game dynamics? Has small ball ever won championships?
A good review. The loss to Mavs was a trigger event.
thanks for history lesson oldtimer
Pops marriage to Michael Finley while being owned by his ex team and their rookie coach.
Great summary. I agree with every word.
We know HOW the Spurs evolved into this. It's puzzling in that we don't know WHY. Especially for a coach that, as you say, prides himself on fielding a solid top-tier defensive team.
The most sobering point is how short this team's frontline really is - sans Tim. It's a shame that as Tim has gotten older, his frontline supporting cast has gotten considerably weaker with each passing season. I really feel bad for him.
Great post! Thank you for saying this. What the is Pop thinking? It's like an experiment that went bad but he stuck with it just because people complained. It's like he's being stubborn just because he was questioned.
If we play small ball and go away from our historical team D, then we are just like everyone else, and we will lose like everyone else. That isn't what won us 4 rings, and it won't now.
Pop isn't an offensive minded coach, he isn't able to coach that way, so we are set up for failure if he doesn't go back to what He instilled in SA basketball.
If he doesn't go back NOW, I'm sorry, but we are finished. And bringing Bruce back would help.
Now someone get this to POP!
Nice take, yup don't know why Pop insists on this lineup... pretty strange to me. Look how well the Celtics are doing, they got a big lineup and I hate to admit it, they would trample our front court.
Pop went to small ball in 2006 against Dallas when it became painfully obvious that his lumbering centers could not: (1) defend the smaller, more athletic Mavericks; and (2) couldn't create offensive mismatches that would make staying with Tall Ball a prudent thing to do.
Look, I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball as much as you can if your second big man/men are either dominating defenders who are athletic enough to deal with 3's who play the 4. I absolutely agree that you play Tall Ball if your second big man/men are polished offensive players who can dominate smaller players in the post and can force mismatches or crazy double teams.
If your second big man is neither of those things, it strikes me as suicidal to play Tall Ball against a team that is playing, in essence, 4 smalls and one big against you.
It would be nice to have the versatility to do both.
However, as someone stated earlier, that problem doesn't seem to faze the Celtics...and they are simply one year removed from winning a le and are gunning for another this year.
Of course it would be nice to have the sorts of Bigs that allow that -- I can't imagine any team that wouldn't want that.
It may be that the Spurs will be shown to actually have that guy, too.
But you're silly if you think the Spurs have a second big that can even hold a candle to Kendrick Perkins on either end. And that's the difference that allows the Celtics to play Tall Ball just fine.
Thats a pretty good take. Not to step on any toes and i'm not for sure but didn't our assistant coach PJ leave us right before the small ball experements?
No.
PJ left after the 2006-07 season.
Turning my attention to the Ian situation, for a moment. It's funny that we've all been lured into thinking that Ian can't play. Obviously, the coaches see this guy every day and certainly they must know more than we. However, do all really believe that this guy can't play? Is the jury closed on this guy? Is he not salvageable?
I just find it hard to believe that a team that is struggling in the post, on both ends, like the Spurs are, cannot find some spot minutes for a 22 year-old, 6'11", 240 lb, young, developing center. Can he be any worse than what little we're getting from all frontline players, not named Duncan?
If Ian can't cut the mus , get him out of here and trade for someone who can. The point is there is nothing to be gained, for either party, from him sitting behind the bench in a sport coat.
when it comes to championships there is no such thing as a fluke
The same coach who brought us small ball and marches out FinleyBonner ad nauseum is to be trusted that Ian cannot play? Look maybe Ian cannot play, but why should we take Poppeds word for it?
Supposed board know it alls used to diss Nazr and Elson back in the Tall Ball days. Funny how we won two les with them and were well on our way to a 2006 le. Duncan didn't look nearly as stressed as he has since smallballs FinleyBonner.
I saw him play during the preseason; it seems pretty clear to me that he's an athlete, but he's not really a basketball player right now -- he's too dependent on athleticism (IMO) and at this level, where he's not freakishly more athletic than those he's playing against, he's just not particularly good right now.
And, yes, he would be much worse than McDyess, Blair, Bonner, and Ratliff.
Economics and practicality stand in the way of running Ian out. If they cut him tomorrow, they'd still be on the hook for his salary this season PLUS the luxury tax on his salary. That the Spurs and Spurs fans know he's not very good makes it extremely difficult to trade him, too.
Either way, we have to play him. No other team will want a player whose option has been declined by his own team without seeing him play a little first.
Appreciate the insights on Ian. What's your take on the long-term future for him? Do you feel that it's just not going to work out for him here in S.A.? That he'll likely have to develop elsewhere?
+5 million.
When teams went small against the Spurs -- as noted in the OP, that happened pretty much with the start of Game 2 of the Dallas series in 2006 -- Nazr became entirely superfluous. He couldn't defend anyone the Mavs were putting out on the court -- if he could have defended anyone (Diop or Dampier) , it would have forced Duncan to play whole games on Nowitzki, which doesn't strike me as a particularly smart thing to do. The "Nazr as proof against small ball" argument is nonsense.
Elson was the Spurs' attempt at a response to their shortcomings against small ball, and he could at least stay on the floor against smaller lineups because he could run and compete athletically. But with that said, as the 2007 playoffs progressed, Elson became the Spurs 4th big; after Game 2 of the Phoenix series that year, he got fewer minutes than both Oberto and Horry in 10 of 13 games -- and he got more minutes than Horry in 2 of the 3 because Horry was suspended. He played 10 minutes or fewer in 6 of the 13 and (tellingly, I think, in the context of this discussion) he got fewer than 10 minutes in Games 3, 4, and 5 of the Phoenix series.
I'm not sure how a team that eeks out a 6 gamer against an 8 seed, barely wins Game 1 of a conference semifinal and then gets blasted in Game 2 of that series is well on its way to a le, but to each his own, I guess.
Frankly, unless Ian takes some quantum leap in terms of his feel for the game and his skills, I can't imagine that he's going to be anything other than an athletic big guy who will be able to block some shots because of that. Beyond that, I'm skeptical that he's going to be a guy who can play even 20-25 minutes per night for anyone -- at least I doubt that he'll be that guy anytime soon.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 11-08-2009 at 12:52 PM.
The big guys we have are a step slow, whether naturally like Bonner or through age like McDyess and Ratliff. Watching Okur motor past McDyess was a revelation.
Ironically, Ratliff may have more athleticism left in the tank than McDyess.
These guys will do okay against some teams because of the matchups, but are going to be pathetic against teams with young athletic bigs.
Pop sold out plain and simple. In 06 he should of stayed with Rasho against Dallas.
This is not easy to say, but I watched the Utah/Dallas game this past week and Dirk was driving past Okur as though he was standing still. Dirk! Of all players. Now we've got Okur motoring past McDyess. There's another possible revelation forthcoming. I just don't want to talk about it.
Ian should get a shot as the starting C. Bogans got his shot and delivered, maybe it can be the same with Ian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
