I listened on WOAI and I swear he said something like Bogans is a defensive stopper who plays a Bruce Bowen role.Listen to coach Brown interview after the game. "Pop thought Bonner is a good option starting because he did a goood job last season and Bogans will play some kind of Bruce role. RJ will give more firepower for the bench with Blair and Manu"
http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/100217.html
This lineup is here to stay...
He didn't sound like he was being sarcastic either.
No more experimentation. At this point Pop should settle on a starting lineup with the BEST 5 players and hope that the chemistry can be built before the playoffs:
TD - no explanation needed
TP - no explanation needed
Manu - 3rd best player on the team PERIOD
RJ - currently strugging, but still better than Finley & Bogans
McDyess - better than Bonner and I like Blair coming off the bench to bring energy
Live or die with the best soilders in the fronline.
Bogans being compared to Bowen
Even then, Bogans is the best perimeter defender the Spurs currently have.
Another veiled Pop comment meant to take a swipe at Bruce.
Again, I've heard people say that, but there's zero evidence to support it. I'm not sure Bogans isn't the worst perimeter defender the Spurs have now that they've traded away Ratliff's corpse.
Bogans didn't look better than Hairston in preseason to my memory.
Only because there was no "I can't quit you, Pop" choice.
Wasn't Bogans like 3-for-29 in preseason?
Worst starting line-up in the NBA. TP, TD, and Hill- good. But Bonner and Bogans? Seriously? On no other NBA team would these guys be good enough to start...
I was only considering defense in the context of the argument that Bogans would be the best Spurs defensive player.
Antonio McDyess. DeJuan Blair. Matt Bonner. How many NBA coaches would pick Matt Bonner as the starter? Seriously. I'm a longtime Pop supporter but I seriously can't imagine any other coach would go with Bonner.
McDyess by all accounts has been improving. Blair's production speaks for itself. Bonner.
Thank you! Is Pop serious with these lineup's now or is he just trying to be funny?
I can see the logic on the paper behind playing Bogans and Bonner:
-Teams best perimeter players are starting so starting Bogans, who is described as a defensive specialist, makes sense.
- Duncan and Parker are Spurs main offensive weapons of the starting lineup. They both can't shoot a 3. Having Bonner to space the floor makes sense.
It sounds nice on the paper, but in reality the Bo's aren't good players and don't have the level to start on a good team. Pop is trying too much to play role players who fit instead of playing the best players.
Spurs aren't contenders but they could surely do better with another starting lineup.
It's the plus/minus... duh
Pop lost it last season and never found it back.
ALL HAIL THE PRINCE OF PLUS/MINUS
OUR SAVIOR HATH RETURNED TO US AT OUR TIME OF GREATEST NEED!
I'd like to know who voted that it was the best line-up? Pop's troll? lmao.
Yes, for the record Bonner remains the team's best plus/minus player for the second straight year. And the Spurs just traded away their worst plus/minus player.
ALL HAIL THE PRINCE OF PLUS/MINUS
OUR SAVIOR HATH RETURNED TO US AT OUR TIME OF GREATEST NEED!
There may be hope yet!
I didn't see a "Deckchairs on the anic" option.
The fact that the Spurs didn't make a trade or even try to move Mason tells me that they don't really believe that the team will win a le..which is obvious to everybody..if that's the case, what the is the harm in throwing your young players out and seeing what you have?..there's no point not to..
Give me:
Parker
Hill/Manu/Mason
Jefferson/Hairston
Duncan/Blair/Bonner
Mahinmi/McDyess
Give this rotation a try, you lose nothing from benching Bogans/Finley and only playing Bonner in certain situations..this lineup gives you more versatility and different abilities..more importantly, it gives you an idea of what the Spurs have in the young players..
Hairston's contract isn't fully guaranteed for next year..wouldn't the Spurs playing him in meaningful games give them an idea of whether they want to keep him next year or not?..
With Ian it's more difficult, but there's no harm in it..yes, if he plays well, there's the likelihood that another team will make him a good offer, since teams generally do that with guys with Ian's physical tools..there's also the possibility that he has loyalty to the Spurs..he's good friends with Hairston, he obviously has a relationship with Tony, he obviously has friends in the organization..
If they don't play well, which is obviously very possible, what the changes for the Spurs?..the team ends up in the same position that it was in before giving them a chance..there's just no reason not to do this since the Spurs have NO chance at winning a le..wouldn't it make sense to at least see if you have some long-term pieces?..
This has a 1% chance of happening, but at least it would make for something to watch, like my man objective said..right now, this team is boring as ..I don't mean "boring" in the stupid way that casual fans used to call the Spurs when we were a grind-out defensive team, I loved that ..I mean boring in the sense that there's nothing to watch right now..the success is low, the energy is low and there's no player development going on..
I absolutely loved watching the Spurs with Hairston/Hill/Blair in the preseason..Tony and Manu connected with Hairston for multiple dunks on fast breaks..we saw what happened with Ian vs. the Nets, all the energy and highlights..
This is just bad. No way around. Nothing, and I mean nothing makes sense about this lineup. I have absolutely no idea what Pop or the FO is thinking with regards to this team now or the immediate future.
If I see Bogans and Bonner in the starting lineup next game, I'm going to cry.
Yeah, If I had to describe this lineup in a couple of words it would be, reversion and regression. Truly puzzling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
