Tim was injured.
He was a starter and commanded the most minutes at his position in those series. You keep going with that selective memory.
If Bonner, or any other role player for that matter, is the difference between winning and losing, then the said role player should be the last of your worries as a Spurs fan.
Bonner is an average to above average role player who fits specific needs. Every team needs these and we're a better team with him than without him ( or with almost whomever a possible trade might bring ).
You reject being labeled a Bonner hater, saying you are just expressing your opinion on the player's pros and cons. Why then do label those who disagree with your opinion as Bonner lovers?
What numbers? Plus minus?
The Dallas series simply displayed that every other relatively good team will exploit Bonner as a mismatch at every opportunity they get. I thought it was pretty clear in the last game against Dallas too.
And he did so by going straight to Matt and to the paint. It was too easy. Before that he mostly took outside shots.
That's quite an overstatement as to the significance of Matt Bonner's role on this team.
I don't have a problem with people like you because you're reasonable. But if I point to the Dallas series and you counter by pointing out Bonner had one good game instead of telling me that he came up largely short in those series, I have to conclude you love Bonner more than a serious discussion...
Is it? Do you think we win anyways if he doesn't make those shots last night?
We have talked quite a bit about living by the 3 and dying by the 3...
So you haven't changed your basic stance? You believe the Spurs would be best served by taking Bonner out of the primary rotation and moving him to the end of the bench or even behind it?
He has a role against fluffy frontlines like last night... I have no problem with a 15 mpg role off the bench. Even more minutes if he's hitting his shots, and said so as much. Would I rather have a player that you can play against every frontline? Sure. But we have what we have.
Just wait until it counts....the true Ginger will be shown...he still sucksHis defense WAS excellent..... for Matt bonner, that is.
I'll take that type of hussle from him EVERY night, thank you very much!
Maybe, maybe not. What difference does it make? Bonner was knocking down shots and his teammates were looking for him. If you want to call that making Bonner the difference between winning and losing games, then fine. I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with wide open 3 point shots for Matt Bonner playing a pivotal role in games. You shouldn't either. If it's one of those nights where Bonner isn't hitting, or he's getting killed defensively, then I have no problems whatsoever leaving him on the bench. He's a role player. Some nights the role for him is to play a big part, some nights it isn't. That's far different than saying the Spurs are making Matt Bonner the difference between winning and losing.
So? Every team in the league lives and dies by something.We have talked quite a bit about living by the 3 and dying by the 3...
This is a bit absurd. If any role player is having a great game then it's great for the Spurs and makes the other's contributions easier to come by.
I'm very comfortable with the prospect that Bonner (or any other role player) being the difference in helping the team win.
Back at you...If Bonner is having a great game...would you want him benched just because he's Bonner?
And Mel, one of this days I'd like to have a deeper conversation of what you think the actual team personality should be. Should we be primarily a team that plays suffocating defense and only gives up 90 or less ppg?. Should we focus on being an offensive juggernaut that scores 130 a night? I mean, we would love to be both, I'm sure. But if you can't be both, what do you think the priority should be? And the personnel that plays the most minutes have a lot of say on what personality you want the team to be out there.
No, and stated so many times already. A guy like Bonner you ride for what he can give you. But you also need to make sure he's giving you more than he's taking away. I think we all agree with that.
Then we have a basic point of agreement. Bonner is clearly a role player. As such, he has value. I estimate that value to be greater than you, but we both seem to accept the basic notion that you can only play the cards that you are dealt.
When role players are used as starters, the team in question cannot be a serious contender. I believe much of the anti-Bonner sentiment here stems largely from him being used in a role beyond his abilities. When used properly, he is an asset and a cost effective one at that.
One last thing. Bonner failed in the Dallas series. Previous to that series, he had played 34 minutes of garbage time in 11 playoff games in 07 and 08. In answer to an earlier question you posed, I would not want the ball in Matt Bonner's hands in a critical playoff moment. No team with Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Jefferson, and McDyess should put their fate in Matt Bonner's hands. (see Jannero Pargo, 4th quarter, Game 7, 2008 WCSF for an example of a good role player used in the worst possible way). That all being said, I don't believe the Dallas series provides definitive proof that Bonner can never be of any value in future playoff series. Just wouldn't want him starting or closing.
As with any other player on the team. Agreed.
As the season gets longer and come playoffs, it is already apparent that with a healthy Duncan, McDyess, Ratliff and Blair...Bonner will be in the situation he should have been in all along.
I can't hate or fault the man for being forced to play a role he had to play last season.
Make up your mind.
Don't disagree. However, I felt much more comfortable when we used to live and die by our defensive play than by hoisting what is probably the lower percentage shot in basketball.
I have always maintained that the spurs should aspire to play good defense and try to set a tone defensively with each game, and it seems Popovich has started to implement lineups that try to accomplish this.
But, with the whacky rules that Stern implemented and his lap dog refs basically making wing players like Kobe and Lebron virtually unstoppable you need to have guys that can score in bunches in order to keep pace.
So if Bonner can keep "heating up" like he's been doing that's a huge asset. Same for Roger Mason, these type of guys have value coming off the bench.
My mind is made up. I don't think the Spurs are making Matt Bonner the difference between winning and losing. If you do, more power to you.
No doubt the defense needs to improve, but even when the Spurs were playing the caliber of defense we know and love the offense was still predicated on the 3 point shot opening things up for Duncan down low.Don't disagree. However, I felt much more comfortable when we used to live and die by our defensive play than by hoisting what is probably the lower percentage shot in basketball.
Correct.
Correct.
Some people here need to understand that when we say Bonner is a liability, it's not necessarily in every single matchup. It's not "hate" also.
Against the really good teams out there, which eventually you will have to face and beat, he's just a terrible matchup. If I'm Carslile, then I want Dirk facing Bonner every possession. If I'm Karl, I want Nene posting him up every possession. If I'm Phil Jackson, I want Gasol/Bynum taking on him on the post on every possession. If I'm Orlando, I'll go to Howard every single time. If I'm Boston, then I want Perkins taking on him. Rinse and repeat...
I'd like to have that conversation as well.
Short answer. Stifling defense is a proven championship winner. Offensive juggernauts, not so much.
If you have the personnel to play top-3 defense, that should be the priority. That seems to be the crux of the dilemma faced by our favorite team. If you don't have the personnel to be a top-3 defense, what do you do? Where do you strike the balance between adding scoring punch if it weakens defense?
There are many here who attribute the fall from elite defender status to a lack of will or commitment. I'm more of the opinion that it represents an acknowledgment of the skill sets available on the current roster. When I watch Pop's body language on the sideline of every home game, it is clear to me that his focus is still on the defensive side of the ball. The reactions you never see on TV are priceless. Offensive miscues usually don't provoke much reaction, but when they give up an open 3 or an offensive board you can see his head about to explode.
I think we're on the right path defensively.
I didn't think we necessarily had the personnel until I saw Bogans and Ratliff. Hill I heard he was a good defender, and he did well against the rook last night, but he's not a seasoned NBA player, meaning he will get little to no respect from the officials when it comes to guarding the Kobe and Melo's of the NBA. Bogans plays with a lot of energy and he seems to thrive in his defensive pitbull role. I'll reserve judgement on how good he really is after we played some of the better teams out there, but I think his energy and hustle on the defensive end are exciting. Ratliff, I wanted to see if he had something left in the tank. He does. He's not a great rebounder, but he can help Tim protect the paint. And Dice gives you a guy that seems to do ok guarding the more mobile bigs like Dirk out there.
I think there's no reason why we shouldn't be a top 3 defensive team. But you kind of need to primarily stick to the guys that give you that iden y.
No argument there. You don't want Bonner matched against the elite big men of the NBA. That's pretty obvious. That's also the perfect case against using him as a starter. It's also a good case for a very limited role in a playoff series against the Lakers. I can't see him playing a useful role if he has to guard Bynum, Gasol, or Odom. Against the Lakers, you have to cover as many of the 96 minutes at PF/C as possible with Duncan, Dice, and Theo. I'm not sure whether Bonner, Blair, or small ball would be the best option for the remaining minutes. Let's hope those minutes are very limited.
Against some other possible playoff opponents he could work when matched against second line bigs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
