Reply With Quote
Finley, is that you?
Surprised they didn't do this. Jefferson could get his game going if Dirk had to defend him on the perimeter. Making Dirk work on defense is the best way to take his rhythm away given the defenders you have. Mcdyess and Bonner don't make Dirk work hard on either end.
Finley, is that you?
Warriors 2007 not enough proof that small ball does work against the mavs?
LOL 2007
Jefferson has proven an ability to disappear no matter what the situation. So there's no guarantee that smallball turns him into a contributor. The Spurs problem against the mavs is rebounding and going small only makes it worse. There are teams out there against whom I think the Spurs could be successful going small against, but the mavs aren't one of them.
With Butler or Marion out there guarding Jefferson, expect to not see much working for him. Putting him at PF gives him a speed advantage. Stephen Jackson took huge advantage of that with the Warriors. Dirk shot horribly in that series as well. If Jefferson could do half as good as Jackson, the spurs could change the rhythm of this series. More of an uptempo game that the Warriors played.
Thanks for the suggestion Mavfan1000, but the Spurs tried to play Jefferson at power forward, and Jefferson himself complained about playing out of position. And his play did not improve until Pop decided to make him a full-time small forward.
They also played with a wreckless type formula, if your semi-open shoot the ball. if you have the ball in your hands, shoot the ball.
What was his complaint? I guess most of the time he would be better suited at SF but not in this particular matchup. Make sure to double team Dirk and be quick with the rotations as what the Warriors did. Small ball allows for quicker rotations. Maybe he isn't smart enough to bother bigger players or being the key to a small ball scheme unlike Stephen Jackson and Marion.
Jefferson had a speed advantage on most nights this season. He was still incredibly inconsistent. If the Spurs are going to win this series it's going to have to be with rebounding. Jefferson as a PF doesn't help that cause. Despite the Spurs turning the ball over 17 times the Spurs still put up 94 points. They'll be able to score enough points in this series and that's the only potential benefit smallball would give. What I'm worried about being able to keep the mavs below 100, and the only way that's going to be able to happen is if the Spurs can limit mav possessions by controlling the glass.
A healthy Hill would be needed for small ball to work though. Might encourage Carlisle to bring Barea in as well. lol
C Duncan
PF Jefferson
SF Ginobili
SG Hill
PG Parker
He said it was a hard transition to a new team when he was officially learning the SF position, but playing his minutes at the PF.
2006 WCSF proof that it doesn't?
SPURS N 6SPURS N 6
I said the same thing in another thread. The idea of small ball makes me want to throw up, but it actually makes sense in this case. Dirk would tire having to chase Jefferson around on Defense. And on the other end it really doesn't matter. He shot damn near perfect over Bonner and McDyess, it's impossible for Jefferson to do any worse. Dirk isn't much of a rebounder for his size, so I'm not worried about that. But it does give Butler and Marion a huge size advantage if we play small. It's a risk, so I don't we'll see it in game 2. But if they drop this next game, I expect to see some different lineups out there.
At the very least, Parker needs to start game 2.
He felt in addition to learning a new system, he was having to do things he'd never done before, such as guarding PF's (understandable) and inbounding the ball (WTF?).
Besides that, RJ's straight line drives to the basket are easily stopped by most perimeter defenders. I wouldn't exactly be shocked if Dirk was able to stop these as well. Perhaps if RJ could be in constant motion and it could have merit.
Also that line up you proposed would leave the Spurs undersized at just about every position assuming the Mavs went with Kidd-Butler-Marion. If I recall the Warriors matched up better size wise on those positions. Hill can be and Manu is a good rebounder for his size but I still wouldn't be comfortable giving up that much size in the backcourt as well as the front line.
I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.
IIRC the spurs tried going small in game one but didn't work very well. Obviously that Jefferson-Blair-Manu-Hill-Mason lineup wasn't small enough IMHO, Parker and temple should be subs uted in place of Blair and Jefferson then the Mavs get killed.
LMAO! I think I've seen the day Spurs fans fear the Mavs! You mutha as have dogged Pop about him playing smallball all year & now yal are saying that's what we need to do!?! I done seen it all. (But that could work!) Lol
I think the Spurs need to go big in the backcourt, not small in the frontcourt. When the Mavs play Kidd-Butler-Marion in the perimeter, the Spurs need to counter with Ginobili-Bogans-Jefferson. Then use Parker against Terry/Barea.
we are doomed. i smell another 1st round exit with small ball line up
Going small worked for the Warriors in 2007 because they were quick and athletic. The Spurs don't have that option. Our only quick and athletic bigman is still so green that he'd get punked by Nowitzki or Haywood, and would probably foul out in 10 minutes.
I've wondered how running against the Mavs would work. Offensively, I think it could open up some lanes for us. Defensively, I hate to get in a sprinting match with guys like Kidd, Marion, and Butler, because I'm pretty sure the Spurs would lose that matchup.
The Warriors had a relatively small team of really fast athletic guys who could rebound and block (They led the league in blocks that year IIRC). Putting four crappy guards and an undersized center out there is exactly what Pop did when the Mavs jumped out to the biggest lead of the game early in the 4th quarter.
Brilliant analysis. Start Parker, which we all know reduces Jefferson to standstill spot up shooter and make Dirk work more on defense (cuz we all know guarding a guy standing on the perimeter is tough).
Last edited by TJastal; 04-20-2010 at 09:59 AM.
Dont think small ball is the answer. You have to gap a difference of 6+ points.
It starts with limiting TOs. Our TOS almost guarantees a fastbreak for them, and either a guaranteed 2 or at least a foul. Whereas when they turnover, we either hold the ball and walk up the court, or we make a failed attempt at a fastbreak. Limit our TOs by limiting the fancy passes in the paint, these guys are long and their arms are always looking to deflect a pass.
And free throws. I'm not too bummed out when dirk gets fouled, considering he's probably gonna make the shot anyways. But I'd rather contest a shot and have him make it then send him to the line, cause once we're in the penalty then that sends ALL their players to the line. (I dont mind dampier going to the line though). So, gotta quit fouling unless its an easy dampier dunk.
The mavs are a jump shooting team, thats why they cannot win the finals. Limit them to jumpshots. Jumpshots eventually dry up, and they have noone that can drive against a good D. Mavs will eventually meet a team that will collapse in the paint the same way they do against parker, I just hope that team is us.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
