Reply With Quote
Yep, that's exactly ing rightHe endorses everything Pop is doing... even though he has no idea what Pop is doing...
Wait, sorry, Pops is teh suxxorz, hooray D-League
Seriously, you didn't read the thread.
But to reiterate, the Spurs should focus on an 8 man rotation, specifically: Hill, Parker, Jefferson, Ginobili, Dice, Duncan, Bonner, and Blair; possibly 9 with Mason/Bogans/Finley playing minor minutes relieving the tired.
Or if we are scrapping the season, I already posted what I would recommend.
Yep, that's exactly ing rightHe endorses everything Pop is doing... even though he has no idea what Pop is doing...
Wait, sorry, Pops is teh suxxorz, hooray D-League
Yeah, pretty much (the guy got me to act like a condescending prick ... the nerve).He endorses everything Pop is doing... even though he has no idea what Pop is doing...
No, I did read that. But what's the end-game?
What does that lead to?
If you're arguing for the possibility of a couple of more home playoff games, there's an argument to be made. But other than that, and there's no guarantee playing Bogans over Hairston accomplishes that, I can't see the downside you obviously believe to be there . . .
You're absolutely right that he has the talent, tools and ability to contribute more in the offense. But to the extent that his reputation suggested, at least prior to arriving, he's just never going to live up to the bill; RJ's game garnered star status once he became a leading player on a bad team, which was due to the amount of offense that depended upon and was run through him.
Injuries have robbed him of lateral quickness and playing on bad teams have ingrained some terrible habits, and that's just not a recipe for success as the Spurs' small forward.
And I agree. He should be better, I'm just skeptical it should really be difference-making.
Like I said, it's a personal preference. The Spurs passed him up for Williams in the Draft and his lack of a 3-point shot doesn't bode well for the Spurs' interest. The Kings apparently gave up a second-rounder, though, so it's possible they view him as an option moving forward.
What other argument would there be if I didn't think they would get more playoff games? And likewise there is no guarantee that Hairston playing will accomplish that either, which is why I think Bogans' minutes should be minimal, if any.
So, in your opinion, who do we play more if Bogans plays less?
More minutes to Hill and Ginobili, with some to Mason and Finley.
I guess the question is: Weighing the pros and cons, is sticking with the status-quo, and letting things just play out, a better option than attempting to infuse the team with a little energy and athleticism at the expense of Bogans and/or a few minutes here and there from Mason, Bonner, Jefferson, etc.
I've never suggested they tank the season. I only requested a little bit of life infused into a stale roster and that they get a jump on next year, given their current trajectory.
Again, the pros outweigh the cons, as far as I'm concerned.
If you mean statistically, of course not. He went from number one option on the Bucks (because Redd and Bogut were injured) to number four option on the Spurs. I expected him to drop from 19.6 ppg to about 15 ppg.
True, but I figured he'd be so excited to be, as he called it, "relevant" again, that he'd play with more energy and effort than he has and I figured, at least when the Spurs went through grueling stretches in the season, where they play and travel a lot in a short time, that he could shoulder the load offensively in some of those games, but he hasn't even done that. Now, he almost seems resigned to being practically being a non-contributor on this team. His confidence is shot.
I remember an on court huddle during a 20 second timeout a few weeks back where he had his hands on his knees and was basically hiding from Pop for about half of it. Pop needs to give him a game where he plays him 40+ minutes and calls his number frequently. I don't care how poorly he plays, let him play through it and at least try to get him going.
Make no mistake, I never thought he alone was a difference maker, what I thought was, he as a fourth option could be. Big difference.
Hill is already playing 30+ minutes. Same for Manu. This is when TP is actually available (I'm looking at the Indiana game for reference).
I don't really see Pop extending those minutes.
Offensively, if Mason is hitting (out of the 3, he's the one that showed up more often this season) then it could work.
Defensively though, Mason, Finley or Bogans are all contesting for who can suck more. We need to upgrade from those guys next season.
Hill is at 27 and Manu is also at 27. Jefferson is only at 31 as well, throw some minutes his way.
Won't get any argument from me there. Too bad we didn't get anything for them before they leave.Defensively though, Mason, Finley or Bogans are all contesting for who can suck more. We need to upgrade from those guys next season.
I would prefer that, if anything, because he has consistently given us more points than the alternatives and because we know he can play the extra minutes.
As of right now, arguing rotation minutes is pretty pointless. This team is not going anywhere. If they make the playoffs, then they will be bent over in the first round.
That said, play the young guys.
The Spurs should go into the stretch run with one mantra in mind: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
The Spurs need more minutes from their best players to get them ready for the postseason. In addition, they need to replace bad players that have no upside with young players that have upside, like Hairston, Blair and Mahinmi. They also need to continue to trust the vets that haven't hit their stride, like RJ, Dice and RMJ. Bonner can play his way back into a spot as a role player, but guys like Finley and Bogans need to be leading the cheers on the sideline.
What you currently see on the roster is the guys that are rowing the boat for the rest of the season. The only way to have a chance is to get all of them rowing together, and taking advantage of what each individual can offer to the team.
No, I wasn't speaking statistically. I think most people had the expectation that his scoring would be down a good amount, but figured his actual impact would still be that of a "star"; RJ would still be someone that had to be accounted for and would represent a sizeable upgrade in the firepower department. But what we've been made witness to in his time here, is that he wasn't just overpaid or on a bad contract, he was ridiculously overpaid on a ridiculous contract.
He was on a contract netted (pun not intended) because of star-like offensive production on a bad team, not undeniable talent that would translate across the board. Even the seeming strides he made as a shooter have been rendered minimal because he's not seeing the ball enough and getting into the same rhythm or flow he would when he was putting up numbers as a first or second option.
He's just not a low-maintenance, efficient scorer that's capable of excelling off the ball offensively. And since he doesn't do much of anything else anymore (past surgeries and irreparable bad habits probably the two biggest culprits), it's almost understandable with the benefit of hindsight -- no less disappointing, though.
I hear you, I'm just not sure how much they can really do at this point (and you're right about his confidence being shot). I've been disappointed we haven't seen more of the two-man game with Tim and RJ, which is something that's shown flashes at times, and more backdoor/duck-ins in the halfcourt; some Princeton-type action that he's had some success with over the years. But, at this point, and with the rotations and health in flux, it's hard to envision the team having enough cohesion and an overall base for RJ to really find his place and way in this offense.
It pretty much is what it is . . .
I agree with virtually everything you said.
Unfortunately, you're probably right about it being what it is. At this point, you'd be beyond niave to believe that Jefferson will miraculously begin to look comfortable and fit seamlessly within' the offense. It's just not going to happen, not this season, at least.
I'm surprised though, that Pop, long lauded for the depth of his playbook, hasn't run more stuff for Jefferson. Look at the Magic, they just took a play out of the Nets old playbook when they had Carter, running what they called a "12" play (1-2 side pick-and-roll with Nelson and Carter, whereby they forced a switch and had Carter in a post-up with a small guard on him), milked it to death and ended up beating the Cavs in large part due to the success of that.
Couldn't/shouldn't the Spurs being doing something similar with Jefferson? Earlier in the season, they were running some stuff for him, particularly early in games, trying to get him off. A few post-ups, even an alley-oop play a few times, but now, nothing. It's like they've just conceded that he's not what they thought or were hoping he was going to be, so they're not going to work with what they have. Pop's forced him into playing the role of a prime Marion, which is only exacerbating the problem.
Yeah, you'd think they'd find more ways than a back screen and lob to the rim from Tony in the corner or the occasional iso, but not so much . . .
But it's not like RJ ever really excelled with anything other than an iso or finishing out on the break and off the creativity of others, so maybe there really isn't all that much to do; the Princeton-type stuff is really the only thing I feel they've failed to really try to incorporate.
I don't think Jefferson is a great post-up player by any stretch and I realize the Spurs usually have Duncan down on the block or Blair, but whatever happened to posting up Jefferson? Pop was all excited about finally having a wing who could post-up and at the other end, not get posted up by opposing wings. That's all been out the window the past few months as well. Pop hasn't done enough to attempt to get Jefferson going, that's my issue. If he's as great a coach as many think of him as, he should be able to incorporate Jefferson more smoothly than he has thus far.
There were a number of Spurs that played the 2 man game well last year. It's completely gone this season. Mason and Duncan were very good at it, and Duncan and Manu can just shred a defense with it.
It's not hard to remember how great of an attribute his post ability was deemed to be by Pop going into the season and how useful it'd end up being, so it is rather odd that it's been neglected as much.
Having said that, I've been pretty disappointed with the effort RJ's put forth when given the opportunity, usually doing nothing more than turning, surveying on his pivot and settling for the jumper, so I'm not sure how fruitful it'd really end up being . . .
The fact that the team wasn't able to come into camp healthy and on equal footing has really put this team behind the 8-ball from Day 1 (and it doesn't seem they've ever been able to get out from behind it, for a mul ude of reasons). Had they had something intact, a cohesion and continuity with their core from the jump, it would've have been much easier for the newer players to acclimate and find their collective games and roles. But since there wasn't a skeleton in place or a puzzle only in need of a few pieces to be complete, it's been as if they were just opening a box up to discover something in need of a complete assembly -- some of the pieces and where they'd end up were known (the Big 3 basically), but they had to find themselves and their chemistry with each other as much as the newer players had to find their chemistry with them.
It's just been a frustrating year . . .
Well stated and well written.
As Spurs fans, or fans of any team for that matter, if your team is not in championship contention, all you want is hope for a brighter, more promising future. That said, the Spurs immediate and long-term future is very murky right now.
It is odd. Pop seemingly gave up on Jefferson quickly, which is baffling after he raved about him after acquiring him. As fans, we can write a player off; as a coach, he shouldn't. Especially when that player is making $14 million a year and was deemed to be the primary piece that would vault his team back into championship contention.
Excuses, that's all those are. The Celtics transformed their roster two and a half years ago, then proceeded to instantly look like they'd been playing together for years. The Lakers made a significant in-season addition two years ago, then proceeded to instantly look they'd been playing together for years. I gave this Spurs team time, realizing that a team so set in their ways would probably take longer than most to come together. But once they'd had training camp and roughly half a season together, there is no excuse. By the rodeo trip at the latest, this team should have looked like a well oiled machine.
So many people talk about "all the new players figuring out their roles", when in reality, other than Jefferson, there wasn't much adapting to do role-wise. McDyess, Bogans and Ratliff were all brought in play the same role they always have, only in the case of Bogans, he went from a secondary wing defender to primary one -- a step up, but the same role. I know players have to get used to playing with one another and learn the plays, rotations, etc., but these guys are generally thought of as high IQ, hard working, veteran players. They should have had this thing figured out by now. As for injuries, this has probably been one of the healthier teams in the league. Outside of Parker, not a single top eight player has been injured for more than a couple of games.
One more thing that I failed to mention, the guy should spend .90% of his time on the left side in the halfcourt; he's just not capable of attacking the seams off the dribble going left (as it inevitably ends in a pull-up halfway to the bucket). If he's got a straight-line drive at the top of the key or he's anywhere where he can go left to right, he's alright. So if I'm Pop, I start running some action that allows him to attack the seams off of closeouts, or once the defense has been swung through good ball movement, from the left side.
I can't say I didn't fully expect this response immediately after submitting the post (this seems to be one of our better back-and-forth topics
I think we eventually agreed to disagree, so it's probably an effort in futility ... but what the . . .
They're just not excuses from my standpoint; they're facts. And since I'm not one advocating that those facts are the reasons they're not winning a championship, I can't see how you'd view it as an excuse on my behalf (but maybe you're just speaking broader terms?).
In my view, you've just taken a too simplistic approach; the game of basketball is all about rhythm, timing and confidence (in game and body) and if a team's not on the same page or in the same place, it's almost impossible to fulfill potential.
When I talk about equal footing, you've got to consider the team and personnel of today and where each individual is collectively at that given time; not who and what they were when they were winning championships. Fact of the matter is, Tim needed the first month and a half of the regular season for his training camp because of a degenerative condition forcing him to take it easy; Tony was slowed with the plantar fascia, ankle injury and overall wear-and-tear; and Manu was coming off surgery and the longest layoff of his career, which had him trying to find his game and the overall confidence in his body. The Big 3 wasn't coming into camp coming off a restful summer after a year of playing ball together consistently, allowing them to pick up where they left off, more or less ... they were fighting an uphill battle to get themselves right; they were behind the proverbial 8-ball from the jump.
Like anything that needs to be put together, there needs to be a foundation and it has to be built incrementally; you can't skip steps if you want to have success. And since they had such a hard time getting their most important pieces, their foundation, up to speed and in sync ... everything else that followed was compromised; they didn't even have a returning supporting cast that was used to playing with the Big 3 as the Big 3 (the roles within the Big 3 and how they interacted with themselves and the team, as it pertains to basketball, were altered with Tony being forced to play a much more prominent role because of the condition of Tim and the injuries, which lead to the absence, of Manu).
That's why I made the analogy of opening a box to find the need for a complete assembly.
It wasn't bringing in the perfect player (a la Pau Gasol) into a ready-made, cohesive unit. It wasn't bringing in a couple of star players that possessed perfect skill sets and played the right positions to compliment each other and a younger supporting cast (who happened to have their two most important players and supporting cast primed, ready and on equal footing to start training camp). This was a team two-years and two-thirds of their lineup removed from a championship, and though the most important characters remained the same, the actual state of their game, health and fitness, suggested otherwise; bringing in two new starters (RJ and 'Dyess -- I guess you could include Bogans), allowing for the adjustment of Hill and Mason (whose roles were in flux and unknown) and a adding a rookie like Blair (someone you have to let play through mistakes), was never something that was going to come easy. Had everything gone perfectly, it would have taken almost half the season to really see this team start to play to potential; it's gone far from perfect.
There's not a doubt in my mind if this team comes into this season with a healthy, in shape, Big 3, ready from Day 1, that they're fighting for the 2 or 3 seed ... none whatsoever. They were a second tier team after all the additions and had the opportunity to capture a le if they could manage to acquire some frontcourt help and add a better overall player on the wing defensively (which they didn't). But because of the way it all started and all that's happened since (injury, uncertainty, losses, frustration, etc.), they've ended up in an untenable situation that will inevitably leave them coming up short of expectation.
It is what it is, though, and I know we'll have to agree to disagree.
Good point. Jefferson is at his best in the half court when he can, from the left going to his right, off a ball fake drive against a defender closing out hot and explode to the rim, finishing with either a dunk, an and-one or two free throws. But this is generally predicated on either Duncan drawing a double team or Parker/Ginobili's penetration collapsing the defense. Problem is, Duncan's isn't getting doubled much anymore and Parker, due to injuries, isn't penetrating and collapsing the defense as much as he usually does, so we're seeing Jefferson in that scenario less and less.One more thing that I failed to mention, the guy should spend .90% of his time on the left side in the halfcourt; he's just not capable of attacking the seams off the dribble going left (as it inevitably ends in a pull-up halfway to the bucket). If he's got a straight-line drive at the top of the key or he's anywhere where he can go left to right, he's alright. So if I'm Pop, I start running some action that allows him to attack the seams off of closeouts, or once the defense has been swung through good ball movement, from the left side.
I can't say I didn't fully expect this response immediately after submitting the post (this seems to be one of our better back-and-forth topics
I think we eventually agreed to disagree, so it's probably an effort in futility ... but what the . . .
They're just not excuses from my standpoint; they're facts. And since I'm not one advocating that those facts are the reasons they're not winning a championship, I can't see how you'd view it as an excuse on my behalf (but maybe you're just speaking broader terms?).
In my view, you've just taken a too simplistic approach; the game of basketball is all about rhythm, timing and confidence (in game and body) and if a team's not on the same page or in the same place, it's almost impossible to fulfill potential.
When I talk about equal footing, you've got to consider the team and personnel of today and where each individual is collectively at that given time; not who and what they were when they were winning championships. Fact of the matter is, Tim needed the first month and a half of the regular season for his training camp because of a degenerative condition forcing him to take it easy; Tony was slowed with the plantar fascia, ankle injury and overall wear-and-tear; and Manu was coming off surgery and the longest layoff of his career, which had him trying to find his game and the overall confidence in his body. The Big 3 wasn't coming into camp coming off a restful summer after a year of playing ball together consistently, allowing them to pick up where they left off, more or less ... they were fighting an uphill battle to get themselves right; they were behind the proverbial 8-ball from the jump.
Like anything that needs to be put together, there needs to be a foundation and it has to be built incrementally; you can't skip steps if you want to have success. And since they had such a hard time getting their most important pieces, their foundation, up to speed and in sync ... everything else that followed was compromised; they didn't even have a returning supporting cast that was used to playing with the Big 3 as the Big 3 (the roles within the Big 3 and how they interacted with themselves and the team, as it pertains to basketball, were altered with Tony being forced to play a much more prominent role because of the condition of Tim and the injuries, which lead to the absence, of Manu).
That's why I made the analogy of opening a box to find the need for a complete assembly.
It wasn't bringing in the perfect player (a la Pau Gasol) into a ready-made, cohesive unit. It wasn't bringing in a couple of star players that possessed perfect skill sets and played the right positions to compliment each other and a younger supporting cast (who happened to have their two most important players and supporting cast primed, ready and on equal footing to start training camp). This was a team two-years and two-thirds of their lineup removed from a championship, and though the most important characters remained the same, the actual state of their game, health and fitness, suggested otherwise; bringing in two new starters (RJ and 'Dyess -- I guess you could include Bogans), allowing for the adjustment of Hill and Mason (whose roles were in flux and unknown) and a adding a rookie like Blair (someone you have to let play through mistakes), was never something that was going to come easy. Had everything gone perfectly, it would have taken almost half the season to really see this team start to play to potential; it's gone far from perfect.
There's not a doubt in my mind if this team comes into this season with a healthy, in shape, Big 3, ready from Day 1, that they're fighting for the 2 or 3 seed ... none whatsoever. They were a second tier team after all the additions and had the opportunity to capture a le if they could manage to acquire some frontcourt help and add a better overall player on the wing defensively (which they didn't). But because of the way it all started and all that's happened since (injury, uncertainty, losses, frustration, etc.), they've ended up in an untenable situation that will inevitably leave them coming up short of expectation.
It is what it is, though, and I know we'll have to agree to disagree.
They're excuses, man. Think about it: when you have talent, commitment and supposedly high IQ players (in most cases), there's no excuse to look this poor. I could see not necessarily being contenders, or underachieving to an extent, but this team should at minimum be firmly entrenched as a top four seed in the conference. Yeah, I am speaking in broader terms.
I know the individual state that each member of the big three entered the season in, but like I said, if shouldn't take over 50 games for this team to "come together". At this point, if they're to do that, it'll happen in the back third of the season. We should have seen more by now.
It's easy to say, after the fact (given the success of those two franchises) that those were all perfect fits. Not that anyone thought they were bad fits at the time, but the point is those two teams found a way to make it work and they did it quickly. Again, I gave this team plenty of time, even argued people who had written them off completely or called them irrelevant, but it's become clear in recent weeks that it's not about giving them time; they're just flat out not good enough. Can they improve upon what they've shown so far? Probably, but at best, what are we looking at here, 2nd round fodder? Even if you didn't think they were championship material, anything less than 3rd round (barring them being decimated by injury) had to have been considered a disappointment entering the season, right? Whatever excuses or reasons, as you like to call them, you want to bring up, the reality is this team still should have been better than they are.
Last edited by TD 21; 02-25-2010 at 02:55 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
