Reply With Quote
dang, spurs fans are really disappointed... not just here, but on 48moh also... after reading the comments there.
Chicago Bulls 98, San Antonio Spurs 93
by Timothy Varner
The scouting report on the Lakers says they have a difficult time containing quick guards. Count the Spurs into that camp as well.
Keep reading →
dang, spurs fans are really disappointed... not just here, but on 48moh also... after reading the comments there.
This is probably their biggest problem with the defense (well, that and their lack of discipline and focus).
The Spurs only started to become effective after they began to force the action and dictate the terms. Even when they threw the trap at Hinrich with Tim and did a poor job sealing the play and preventing the split, they still forced a player to make a decision under duress; it netted a couple of turnovers and bad offensive possessions for the Bulls. It wasn't full-proof, as they were also burned a time or two, but it allowed them to be the aggressor. For a change, they weren't on their collective heals failing to execute the "Rope-a-Dope".
I'd say their inability to dictate the terms, both offensively and defensively, has been one of their most glaring problems. Their discipline, attention-to-detail and intelligence, being the other culprits (watching Roger Mason, Jr. foul at the end of the game when they were clearly playing for a stop, seemed to encapsulate the times).
So while many say their offense isn't a problem, I'd have to disagree; not having a problem scoring does not equate to running a sound or quality offense. There's no consistency to their attack or end-game purpose (the analogy of a run game in football, something that wears down the defense and is effective if for only the attempts, would seem a good one).
Watching this team is almost like watching and All-Star team or a collection of talented individuals that have been dominating the playground for a couple of weeks (you see the talent and it's impressive at times, but you know they'd get their clocks cleaned if they had to play a real team; it's USA Basketball '02-'06). Seeing the difference between them and their opposition coming down the stretch of games, when playing a good-to-pretty-decent team, is eye-opening. Teams like the Jazz, Rockets and Bulls look like, well, a team, while the Spurs look to be searching for answers and a way to overcome their lack of cohesion and know-how in a team concept.
These just aren't the Spurs we've become accustomed to.
"For about a quarter per game we’re teased by the impression of championship-caliber basketball. And the other 36 minutes is a series of foibles, fumbles, and just-misses."
Yep. I have yet to hear anyone come out with a definitive answer for the fourth quarter failures.
True and not true... There's a certain undeniable amount of 'corporate knowledge' and know-how of the system, as you describe, but defensively, this team has shown for stretches that it can defend, and it can do it at a fairly good level (1 out of 4 quarters). So eventually, it's more about effort for 48 minutes than anything. There's also a matchups issue. Last night was interesting because we played tall ball for 36 minutes, and the Bulls were hitting everything from outside. If the idea was to stop penetration and reduce rebounding from their athletic front court, then you can say it was a success: We competed on the boards, forced turnovers, had more points in the paint than them and had a lead going into the 4th quarter. But we didn't stick with it. The 4th quarter was compe ive, but we simply could not get a stop when we needed. And it's not like they didn't miss. The problem is that our best rebounder was sitting on the bench.
As far as offense goes, sure, we have some jitters here and there, but the proof is indeed in the pudding. We are really scoring a lot and honestly if we wouldn't have been none of these games would have been close at all.
The team has lost total confidence in its coach, I can see it on their faces as they sit on the sideline. They look dejected even when up/winning.
It's going to take some time for them to realize POop's not going anywhere and they are going to have to basically figure out how to win by themselves.
As long as this team has a healthy big 3 the other players can look up to and draw confidence from I am confident in their chances.
Yeah, that article is a pretty good summary. As mad as I am about the refs last night and from quite a few games, the Spurs should be used to not getting respect from the refs. They can play through that. The reality is, they have shown flashes of brilliance and that gives me hope. But they have to bring it every night, for 48 min.
But that's the point. A good defensive effort is wasted by a mental-lapse at the end of the clock (the failure to secure the rebound, which is made all the more difficult by small ball, would also fall in this category); a Roger Mason, Jr. foul and George switching at the last second (when in perfect position to contest), as to give Rose just enough room to hit a shot in the paint before Tim recovers, those are correctable.
I'm not denying that Pop's love affair with small ball has become detrimental to the team. But the right amount of attention to detail and discipline would have this team on pace to win their customary 53-plus games; likely better, given the relative ease of the early schedule. I might be in the minority, but I'm not seeing players dogging it or not giving an honest effort for the majority of the game; I don't believe Pop's being disingenuous when he asserts that he likes the effort. What I see is a lot of misdirected energy and misplaced effort: "Never mistake activity for achievement", I think's the old adage the Big Hippie loves to recite (I'm sure it was Wooden's).
So whether it's a mental-error from someone like Mason last night or a defensive miscue that happens on a pretty regular basis these days, it's stuff that could greatly improve their results, in spite of Pop's playing of small ball.
I contend they're scoring a lot because they're just that talented. And, in doing so, they become lax and complacent when on a run or having any kind of notable success; they haven't shown the ability to handle prosperity.
When it's time to put the hammer down and turn a compe ive game into a laugher, they just don't know how to execute the offense in a way to put a game out of reach; often they settle for jumpers, don't attempt to get to the line or lose focus by not completing the most basic of plays, as they take their scoring for granted; it comes too easy at times (which is foreign to this Spurs fan). And when I compare it to a run game in football, it's in the purpose: you pound the rock regardless of having great success, so long as you're capable of racking up the attempts, while controlling and dictating the game. There just isn't a consistent end-game purpose in their offensive approach.
With all the added talent, a small forward with star-status and a couple of youngsters (playing significant minutes) that all have a knack of getting to the line, the Spurs still don't get there at the league average (sure, going from 30th to 19th in FT/FGA and from 30th to 23rd in overall FTA is an improvement, but it's not nearly enough when you compare the '08-'09 and '09-'10 rosters. The free-throw line is the NBA's version of a running game; there's no reason this team shouldn't be able to utilize it.
So while they're scoring points like never before and their offense isn't the major point of contention, it's numbers are deceiving (a soft, home-heavy schedule only helps to inflate). It's just not where it needs to be or anywhere near it's capable of being; should they find a way to make less-than-ideal fits mesh (see: Richard Jefferson).
But I'd definitely concede it's not what should be most concerning to the Spurs and fans alike.
The main thing I noticed was that throughout the game the Bulls guards Rose and Hinrich werent scoring basically any of their points in the paint, but ALL on jump-shots....
You do have to tip your cap to Rose and Hinrich (Rose in particular) for knocking down their jumpers. But there's something to be said for allowing players to play in a comfort zone and I thought the Spurs (with traps and some changing of coverages) proved that, at times, during the second half.
The Mason foul is a perfect example. You can attribute that foul to a correctable mental-lapse. To me, no amount of 'corporate knowledge' will fix that. Roger is a great shooter, but a below average defender/bb IQ guy. I would say half of the fouls Mason rack up are exactly those ticky tacky hack-at-the-ball-and-arm fouls. Since you will be calling a timeout afterwards no matter what, there's no reason not to play a better/smarter/situational defensive player (Bogans/Hill) and then sub Mason back in for the offensive play. Just like Pop subbed McDyess in the play right after to make sure we get the rebound after the free throws.
I always thought defense, or lack of defense, was contagious. You see a guy next to you busting his ass, and making a stop, then you wanna go and do the same. And all of a sudden, the entire team is busting their butts for a stop. It's the proverbial 'setting the tone'. Bowen and Duncan did that for us forever. They set the bar high enough, then everybody fall in line. I don't think players are not putting forth a certain amount of effort. I just don't think we have a guy that shows everybody how high the bar needs to be.
In a way, that's why early in the season I wanted to see more of Theo. It's not because of his (inexistent) offense, or because of his (rather average) rebounding. It's because you already have Duncan setting the bar, and if Theo gets to either block a shot or change a shot, then you've established the tone.
Well, you can't say guys like Duncan, Tony or Manu don't know how to handle prosperity. I think the problem is that the complete lack of defense puts such a pressure on the offense, that at some point you just can't keep on giving up 28 point quarters. And I think that at some point it becomes psychological. You know you have a good lead but in the back of your head you can't relax because you know the slump is coming and you simply cannot have that safety net that you'll get a stop if you need it.
I think this team is extremely talented, offense-wise. Probably the better gunning team in the Duncan era. I firmly believe that as soon as the defense improves slightly (between 5% and 10% improvement in FG allowed), we're going to start winning many more games than we're going to be losing...
The question is wether we have the personnel to make that defensive improvement...
BTW, thanks for taking the time to have this conversation
Pretty much agree on all counts.
Mason really has no business being on the court when you need a defensive stop, but it's hard to prevent it from happening when you're trailing and he's really the only three-point specialist currently available; him being on the court stretches a defense and opens up driving lanes, even if he never catches or shoots the ball. They needed a bucket, it was the right move for him to be out there, unfortunately they failed to convert and were forced to have him play defense because there was no stop in action (at least, that's how I remember it).
You're preaching to the choir here. As a matter of fact, after the first loss of the season (coincidentally, against the Bulls) I brought up the importance of tone and the inability of this currently constructed roster to set it properly; certainly not for the long haul and not in the fashion of past Spurs teams.
More now than ever, this team has to play on a string and contribute defensively across the board. With Tim not being as dominant on that end and the loss of Bruce on the perimeter, things just can't be done the same way; complimenting the decline in Tim and the loss Bruce with players like Parker, Jefferson and Blair, just isn't a recipe for success on that end. Some believe that a decent uptick in the offense can overcome such a deficiency, but I just don't buy it. How many teams win a Championship with good-to-very-good offense (what the Spurs will have if they manage to progress) and a good-not-great defense (also what they'll have if they manage to improve and progress on that end)? I can't really think of one. Champions are usually dominant on one end and at least solid on the other; I think that pretty much bears out when looking back over the last decade.
You would think, wouldn't you? But it happens to them as well; I can remember on multiple occasions where Tony and Manu took ill-advised jumpers towards the end of runs.
Just looking back to the game against the Lakers, I can remember a stretch where they (Tony and Manu) both took a couple of bad shots, Tony took a layup for granted and they then compounded the mistake by allowing uncontested post-entry passes into Bynum, that Tim all but conceded when having a big lead; they just exhale and take their collective foot of the pedal across the board, which, in that brief stretch of time, breaths life back into the opponent and swings the momentum out of their favor.
There's no doubt it's psychological. In fact, all go a step further. It's a lack of mental toughness; making the right play, at the right time, regardless of cir stance, is just as much about mental-toughness as making a play in the clutch. When you're a fighter who's had the ultimate success, it's often believed those silk pajamas and nice surroundings take the edge off and allow a fighter to become vulnerable. Well, it's the same kind of thinking when you have success in anything (for any stretch of time): when things come easy or everything's going your way, it's easy to forget how you got to that point and lose the edge or hunger it took to get there. It takes discipline; the Spurs haven't proved to have enough of it.
No doubt. If they can get their bearings and just stay relatively solid in the scheme, they're going to start winning their fair share of games again; if this team had come into the year with a year under their belt and had been able to get off to a good, cohesive start, there's no reason they couldn't win between 55 and 60 games, imo (they've got enough firepower and defensive ability to be a pretty damn good regular-season team). I just never bought into them being someone to win a le as-is; while explosive offensively, they're a bit ill-fitted. And they're defensive personnel just isn't good enough at the right positions.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to have this conversation
Gotta admit, though..
I was tempted to give you a link to my response.
I was tempted to give you a link to my response.
I think we're on the same page here. Let's see what the Hawks game brings...
that's exactly how I feel....I finally know what it’s like to cheer for an average team.
Winner winner, chicken dinner. Man was I impressed with the 12 minute stretch they played against Utah to start the homestand. It had me truly believing that we had turned a corner.
That seems like years ago now.......
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
