Reply With Quote
That's because Pop is old and he wanted to catch the early showing of MAcGyver.
So everyone is excited about Pop giving the young guys extra burn tonight and each of them seemingly capitalizing on the opportunity, but what's lost?
The Spurs...that's what.
I have to admit I was inspired by the play of Hill, Hairston, Blair, Mahinmi and even Jefferson (for a couple plays)...but when that young group got the game to a manageable defecit, youth should've given way to talent and experience.
Where were Tim and Manu down the stretch? Why has Pop stubbornly refused to play the young guys (except Hill) all season long but then put the game in their collectively inexperienced hands down the stretch?
Pop conceded the game in the third quarter...and for what? Can the Spurs actually afford for Pop to "give a lesson" to his veterans, or whatever reason Pop may have had?
I want to believe that Pop has a method to his madness...that he actually wants to give Tim an opportunity to earn a 5th ring. But I can't make heads or tails of the decision tonight.
Am I missing something?
That's because Pop is old and he wanted to catch the early showing of MAcGyver.
Nope. I've also been of the mindset that you go with the players that got you there.I have to admit I was inspired by the play of Hill, Hairston, Blair, Mahinmi and even Jefferson (for a couple plays)...but when that young group got the game to a manageable defecit, youth should've given way to talent and experience.
I guarantee if Pop brings Manu and Tim back in when they cut it to 5 or 6, the lead goes back up to 15. It's happened many times before. A group on the court cuts into a lead and Pop takes them out in favor of whoever wasn't playing well earlier and the lead instead of continuing to shrink, expands.
I'm actually happy he kept them out there til the end.
Watching a group of hungry young players do what they should have been doing the previous two and a half quarters.Where were Tim and Manu down the stretch?
Tim was in a whining mood tonight. In spite of putting up 17, he was a mental no show. I probably would have put Manu back in though.
I thought it was Matlock.
It's entirely possible that he did exactly what he did thinking that now Dice and Bogans and Finley are going to be very productive when they start the next game. Not playing Duncan and Manu, who both played hard and didn't do badly, may be a sign of how bad Pop is missing the boat on this.
So you're telling me you were satisfied with Pop not subbing in Duncan when Blair fouled out?
Duncan was dominating the smaller players all night and could've had a field day down the stretch with their lack of size in the frontcourt.
Rolling with hot players that are far less talented is NEVER the right call, but we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
Pop is playing for the lottery because he knows the spurs have no shot this year. They will regroup for next year and add some size on the frontline if not, Duncan retires without the 5th.
Completely. If Duncan gets subbed in, the offense changes completely. It becomes 4 down mania and that wouldn't have worked.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Pop inserting Ian because he probably didn't care about the end result was a good thing because of Ian's quickness, length and athleticism not to mention he didn't have every play called for him which allowed Hairston, Hill and Jefferson to play fluid basketball.Duncan was dominating the smaller players all night and could've had a field day down the stretch with their lack of size in the frontcourt.
CIA Pop?
You can read this two ways:
- Pop thought we just didn't have it tonight and rather have the veterans rested for an early game Sunday.
or
- Pop finally realized that the veteran talent around the big 3 suck, and wanted to have an extended look at the end of the bench guys to see if he can get something from there.
I hope it's the second one, however it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was the first one...
This was just a STFU to the fans from POP that almost backfired...
Yeah, I was a little bit optimistic until this thread. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the OP's exactly right, and that Pop just thinks he can shame Fin and Bogans into not being wretched because they don't hustle enough.
Right off the bat, this team was behind the 8 ball. Pop trotted out a lineup full of mismatches that favored Houston. Hill had his hands full with Brooks, Bogans with Martin and finley couldn't stay with anyone, Antonio was dead in the water and the only mismatch in the Spurs favor, Duncan was neutralized by the ref's failure to call all the fouls the rockets were tagging him with. the final lineup played very hard and impressed. But Ian and Hairston probably won't get too much more playing time. As they will be trotted back to the end of the bench. Very frustrating game.
Don't you see?
Pop is messing with you !
Here you are, posting different theories, admitting that you don't know what to expect, hoping stuff.......
Meanwhile, POP is laughing at you: CROFL, LMAO puppetsvich
That's right, he has been reading ST for years, so stop starting threads about him, otherwise he is winning
CIA Pop
From yahoo sports
Popovich used his bench extensively in the second half after the starters allowed Houston to jump out to the early lead.
“Our second unit did a good job getting us back into the game,” Duncan said. “The guys out on the court were the guys making the run. You don’t penalize them and take them out when the score gets close.”
This is my point...how are the Spurs in any position for Pop to just concede the end result?
You can't tell me it wasn't a curious decision to leave one or both of their superstars out of the game down the stretch when it CLEARLY became a winnable game.
I'm going with the first option. IMO, I don't think Pop was trying to make a comeback.
Pop made the right choice sticking with the young guys. The Spurs were getting burned with Houston's speed. They needed those young legs in there to match. Once the Rockets speed was somewhat neutralized, they had a hard time scoring.
You do when it increases the chances of winning the game. What a jackass.
Speaking of Pop w/ "jackass" comment...not you ElNono
Don't shoot the messenger!!
Duncan in for Mahinmi
Ginobili in for Mason
Sure you sacrifice some team speed in the frontcourt, but you're still playing small and you still have the favorable defensive matchups (Hairston on Martin/Hill on Brooks).
Oh yeah...and you've got Tim freaking Duncan out on the court.
I just don't see how this is debatable.
It doesn't increase the odds of winning. If anything, it decreases them.
Because they're in their 30's and had been sitting for a quarter and a half. Bringing them in late in the fourth DOES NOTHING for the Spurs but kill the offense and defense.
This isn't Manu and Tim of 5-6 years ago. If you think it is, I have a hot tub time machine to sell you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
