mason ing sucks. i would rather temple,bogans get any sort of minutes he is getting.
+1....If Pop has any brains...he will give all of Mason's minutes in the post-season to Temple/Hairston..
mason ing sucks. i would rather temple,bogans get any sort of minutes he is getting.
Oh, I don't doubt that he'll play a serious role, I just hope he doesn't..hopefully your man steps up TJ..
Of course he logged 37 minutes tonight...Hill and Manu were missing, what did you expect?
I just hope Pop realizes Mason is the least productive Spur before its too late.
I won't take a early season exit very well if we play Mason a vital 15-20 minutes, going into a 0-2 hole by very slim margins of defeat.
Spurs need the most efficient 48 minutes possible and playing Mason doesn't correlate with that philosophy.
When Temple debuted with the Spurs I mentioned in the Game Blog that I'd be down for him taking Mason's spot. And while it was somewhat facetious and more of an indictment on Mason's play ... I'm thinking I was on to something.
Mason, for all intent and purposes, looks to have checked out. There is absolutely nothing inspiring about his play; the guy's jacking up shots just to jack up shots.
Mason's got one real, good skill that could be useful (could being the operative word) but since that skill has gone in the toilet (after a few misses), there's nothing he's got that's going to contribute to the win column.
I Hope Hairston's ready physically and both he and Temple find a way to steal minutes from 'Money' (as in what he's stealing from Holt).
Well I wouldn't expect much, and if he sucks alot of that blame can be placed on Pop. Ego's aside and not even factored in, Roger's role has been changing all year long and even in the last game Pop still had to monkey around with him. Which has pretty much been par for the course all year long.
This time Roger starts to look comfortable playing with Parker kicking out to him in the 2nd unit in the timberwolves' game so what does Pop do?
Moves him to the starting lineup and moves Temple to the bench. Why start Temple for weeks then change everything up in the last game of the season?
Like I said I'm not counting on anything from Roger because who knows what role Pop is going to have him playing in the playoffs.
I gotta say, as a fan, it's extremely dissappointing to get all excited about good chemistry being created (between Parker and Mason in the 2nd unit) then watch the coach douse that chemistry with gasoline and set it ablaze in the last game of the season no less.
I'd love to know why Pop starts Roger Mason when you have been using Garret Temple for weeks as a starter and Keith Bogans for months before that?
Is it Tuesday?... nope Wednesday, guess that doesn't explain it..
20 games ago i would have said that the blame was on Pop, but he's been getting more than enough time to try and re-gain his confidence, but he's just mentally fragile in that regard and can't do it. he's had his chance, and he's blown it. actually, he blew it 10 games ago. but Pop has stuck with him and despite that he still hasn't been able to pull it together.
Of course Temple is a Mason replacement. Mason isn't coming back.
But really, Temple started all of four games. Don't cry for Mason. I would have bought him out and signed someone who wanted to play.
Hey I got an idea .. why not use Mason in a role that we have seen actually work this season (which is to bring him off the bench with Parker). Nah, that would be too easy... nothing in Pop's world can be easy.. we have to overthink this.....
I'll be the first to admit Temple is outplaying Mason lately and has performed well in the starting lineup. This begs the question... why didn't Pop continue the trend of starting him? Do you think Pop is cute with all his different starting lineups? That he's being clever by swapping guys in and out of the starting lineup? Like wow, in' man.... he's blowing the other teams' minds *puff puff pass*
Mason goes on to log more minutes than Temple (37 vs 26) despite shooting miserably and looking way out of sync offensively. More brilliance ... and I notice you don't have an explanation for that...
Sure thing, coach.
You are completely overthinking a throwaway game, coach.I'll be the first to admit Temple is outplaying Mason lately and has performed well in the starting lineup. This begs the question... why didn't Pop continue the trend of starting him? Do you think Pop is cute with all his different starting lineups? That he's being clever by swapping guys in and out of the starting lineup? Like wow, in' man.... he's blowing the other teams' minds *puff puff pass*
It's a throwaway game, coach. Pop would have forfeited had that been an option.Mason goes on to log more minutes than Temple (37 vs 26) despite shooting miserably and looking way out of sync offensively. More brilliance ... and I notice you don't have an explanation for that...
Look coach, I know you have your pet players and Pop is the only reason they could ever play badly.
Let's just say that is a given from now on so you can save some keystrokes.
Fire Pop.
Throwaway game indeed. Pop "threwaway" the chemistry and cohesion of the team more or less. And we'll be lucky to see a 100% George Hill for the playoffs now. Yah, I'm overthinking this....
For a throwaway game I'd have expected Pop to be a lot less agitated over on the sideline.. a little calmer. Maybe you ought to hook him up with some of that weed you been smokin' Chump
And if this was a throwaway game I would have expected Hill to be sitting his gimpy ankled self out, taking it easy. Parker I can see getting some burn just for the reps, but why Hill?
It will always be his fault.
Now you're just ing.And we'll be lucky to see a 100% George Hill for the playoffs now. Yah, I'm overthinking this....![]()
He was pretty pissed about the photographer, but of course Pop hired him to injure Hill.For a throwaway game I'd have expected Pop to be a lot less agitated over on the sideline.. a little calmer. Maybe you ought to hook him up with some of that weed you been smokin' Chump![]()
Your other pet Malik was more gimpy.And if this was a throwaway game I would have expected Hill to be sitting his gimpy ankled self out, taking it easy. Parker I can see getting some burn just for the reps, but why Hill?
Just blame Pop for everything -- oh, wait. You already did.
how many excuses do people have for this guy?
The guy is shooting less than 25 % the past 2 1/2 months. Your chemistry excuse between Mason and another player isn't the culprit for such poor production by Mason.
The guy is extremely limited on the defensive end and has only been a shooter. When a shooter has been shooting less than 25% for the past 10-12 weeks, you sit him. Especially if he has an injury, which he's proclaimed to bother him. It makes no sense to play the least productive player in the most important time of the year.
I pray to god Pop realizes this before its too late.
I won't take a early season exit very well if we play Mason a vital 15-20 minutes, going into a 0-2 hole by very slim margins of defeat.
Spurs need the most efficient 48 minutes possible and playing Mason doesn't correlate with that philosophy.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 04-15-2010 at 05:34 AM.
As usual you have no answer to the hard questions... as expected. I'm just " ing" by asking legitimate tough questions.
To me, throwaway game = Hill sits and rests gimpy ankle for playoffs. Even Phil Jackson and the lakers were smart enough to do that with Bynum.
So obviously this wasn't a throwaway game as you'd like everyone to think. This was a trademark Pop move that typically ends up backfiring on the team.
L
O
L
It's a throwaway game when Manu and Duncan are sitting out.
You are too blinded by rage and hatred for Pop that you don't understand that.
If its throwaway game why wasn't Hill sitting on the sideline laughing and joking in a suit then?
Answer please and don't just grouse about hating Pop.
Wait a second.
You are still trying to claim this game, where Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan were held out, was not a throwaway game?
Again, all that is needed here to answer your tough, probing question is
L
O
L
Hill was back from an injury. He was "getting reps" just like you pointed out Parker was doing. Chances are he wasn't going to play much more than last game.
Did you demand Hill not play against Minnesota as well?
Because his injury wasn't severe or serious. ( As you can tell by his quick recovery).
And Pop wanted to give Parker and Hill more reps going into the weekend, since the two are the only players in the rotation who's rhythm is slightly off because of the time they missed.
I guess that means you don't have a legit answer to the question, since you aren't addressing it. I guess risking Hill in a "throwaway" game is good smart coaching in your world.
I just addressed it, coach.
Quick recovery my ass... obviously the ankle was still gimpy. But I suppose you'll claim it was well worth the risk of a re-injury to get a few reps in a "throwaway" game ... sure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)