RJ shooting threes seems like a marginal approach. He is best driving and pulling up for mid-range jumpers (a lost art). Let someone else spot up. Bogans even.
Having waded thru all this . . stuff, here is what I would propose.
Start Duncan, Dyess, Parker, Bogans and whomever (RJ probably).
That should leave a lot of choices off the bench. Manu works well with anyone who's struggling offensively, so let that be your guide.
Let Bogans roam and take the pressure off Hill.
Mix it up in guarding Nash. Watch out for Hill, he's due.
Then tell me when to open my eyes and let me know what happened.
I don't completely hate the idea of simply subs uting Parker for Hill and Bogans for Manu in Game 2; I'd have a short hook, though.
I just don't want to screw with George too much (changing positions, assignments, bench, starter, etc.) because the guy should be starting when they get back to the AT&T Center -- the homecourt does wonders for the inexperienced and youth.
Yeah, but this is new. This not even willing to stand behind the three point line nonsense. He wasn't doing this before. If anything, he was settling too much for the three and not driving enough. He knows the game, he probably just needs to be reminded that if he's not willing to stand there and shoot it when the shot is there, that it kills the spacing. They could easily point it out to him on film if he's not aware of it himself.
The other problem with your lineup is it allows Nash to rest on defense. By playing Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson together, the Suns have to pick their poison. He can't guard Parker and Ginobili off the dribble and would be physically over-matched guarding Jefferson. That matchup is too easy for Richardson. Who cares if they're in the half court and the ball isn't in Nash or Stoudemire's hands if they're getting easy shots all the same? I think Hill can adequately guard Nash going forward; physically, he has no chance against Richardson.
But how do we know that lineup wouldn't thrive together? It's been used so little this season and I'm fairly certain didn't start a single game together. It's like people who inexplicably criticize Mahinmi. We haven't seen enough to have a concrete opinion and even if you're right and it's not entirely ideal, wouldn't it at least cause some major problems for the opposition? That much talent on the floor at once. I'm not saying have it for 40 minutes a game. Like I said, start the first 5-6 minutes that way and see how it goes. If Pop works the rotation correctly, they can still have the depth that you're searching for. All he'd have to do is not stick with it for 9 or so minutes, like most teams do. But Pop already doesn't do that with the starters.
I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Duncan early and often as well. To me, the offense in this series should run through Duncan and Parker more so than Ginobili. I know he's the golden boy, but basketball is about matchups and capitalizing on ones that are favorable, while trying to find solutions (or even band-aids) for ones that are not favorable. I agree, Ginobili needs to cut down on the ridiculous threes and the ill-advised cross body pick-and-roll passes.
He needs to take the corner three when it's there for spacing purposes. Even if he shoots it at a poor percentage, it's important to take the shot when it's there, because if the defense doesn't have to respect even the threat of a shot, then they can easily help off of him to slow Parker and Ginobili's drives and to double Duncan on the block. If you're not willing to shoot, particularly in the playoffs, then you can't play.
Last edited by TD 21; 05-05-2010 at 12:18 AM.
I agree that it's new, but what does that say? It seems to me the pressure of the playoffs is exposing him as the slasher he is and not the improved three-point shooter he was in Milwaukee (where he had a lot more touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and build his confidence). Pressure in basketball exposes and/or reveals character and forces players to revert to what they know best. RJ's a finisher and a slasher ... he just doesn't truly believe in his shot.
Would I love to have Nash getting his ass worn out every minute he's out there defensively? Sure. Would him being able to rest on Bogans for a couple of minutes deter me from my opinion. No, I definitely took that into consideration; it's about getting the Spurs to play their best and letting the chips fall where they may. This is simply the best template under the cir stance, IMO.The other problem with your lineup is it allows Nash to rest on defense. By playing Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson together, the Suns have to pick their poison. He can't guard Parker and Ginobili off the dribble and would be physically over-matched guarding Jefferson. That match-up is too easy for Richardson. Who cares if they're in the half court and the ball isn't in Nash or Stoudemire's hands if they're getting easy shots all the same? I think Hill can adequately guard Nash going forward; physically, he has no chance against Richardson.
As for Richardson, I'm not going to allow a bad matchup to take my fourth best player off the court. The Spurs should be able to manage with their team defense and some better attention to detail. And with Hill playing off the ball, he becomes a mismatch himself. Speed kills ... and Tony and George should be able to get out in the open court and cause just as many problems for the Suns.
None of this is really known. It's speculation based on our own knowledge and our assessment of the talent. I just happen to believe the Spurs' best bet in this series is Tony and Tim, and allowing them to be the focal point to start is a prudent way to go.But how do we know that lineup wouldn't thrive together? It's been used so little this season and I'm fairly certain didn't start a single game together. It's like people who inexplicably criticize Mahinmi. We haven't seen enough to have a concrete opinion and even if you're right and it's not entirely ideal, wouldn't it at least cause some major problems for the opposition? That much talent on the floor at once. I'm not saying have it for 40 minutes a game. Like I said, start the first 5-6 minutes that way and see how it goes. If Pop works the rotation correctly, they can still have the depth that you're searching for. All he'd have to do is not stick with it for 9 or so minutes, like most teams do. But Pop already doesn't do that with the starters.
If Manu and RJ are on the court, that's two more mouths to feed and two more guys who are better with the ball -- RJ's not a spot-up shooter and neither is Manu, really (he's capable but you want him creating more often than not). I just have a hard time believing their skillsets are capable of thriving and maximizing their potential all at the same time. Thus, if you get them off in tandems and they're able to find a rhythm or confidence with better quality opportunities, they're in better position to coexist effectively to finish the half and game together.
I stated before the series that, given the matchups, their best defense might actually be their offense. I stand by it.I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Duncan early and often as well. To me, the offense in this series should run through Duncan and Parker more so than Ginobili. I know he's the golden boy, but basketball is about matchups and capitalizing on ones that are favorable, while trying to find solutions (or even band-aids) for ones that are not favorable. I agree, Ginobili needs to cut down on the ridiculous threes and the ill-advised cross body pick-and-roll passes.
It's always been important with the Suns, even if it looked like the Spurs were speeding up their play, to control the pace with their offense. They took advantage of the easy opportunities out in the open court, but they still pounded them inside; there were more possessions but the style didn't change ... it just became more opportunistic.
Maybe. But like I said, Pop needs to give him an ultimatum: Either go behind the line and be willing, without hesitation, to shoot the open corner three if it's there, or don't play. It's real simple, you don't give him an option.
Allowing Nash to conserve energy early and probably get off offensively early again is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter who it is, basketball is a game of rhythm. You let any player, particularly one that good, get going early and they're gong to be more difficult to slow down late.
I'm not saying take him off the court, but there's no chance I'd start Hill at the two. Again, you let a player who's already scorching hot get off early, only bad things can happen. If the Spurs have to go to this matchup at certain points or even to close games in order to Hill to be on the court, fine, but not to start.
I know it's not known; that's what I'm saying. That lineup was actually very good together in game one, yet there's this notion that they can't play together because of the lack of spacing. I agree, Duncan and Parker should be the focal point, but what's wrong with Ginobili playing the spot up shooter role, at least to start? There's your guy who can space the floor. Play through them and let him spot up at the start, then get him out five-six minutes in and bring him back with the second unit a few minutes later, when he can be the primary creator. You're just making assumptions: "I have a hard time believing". But you don't know for certain.
They don't all have to thrive at once, just serve as a threat. The Suns, if they were determined to take Nash off Parker without taking him out of the game, would be forced to put him on Jefferson. He'd either take him into the post and score easily or draw the double and kick it out to an open shooter.
I agree about controlling the pace with their offense and that starts with pounding the ball into Duncan early and often.
But how did Nash get off to start? The Spurs were admittedly on their heels and taking by surprise at his aggression scoring-wise. They played him soft, or cold, and he burned them by getting to the cup for a handful of layup and-or easy shots. Nash took advantage of what the Spurs gave him -- don't give him the red carpet treatment to the bucket and he'll look to distribute more from the start.
And just because Bogans is on the court for a handful of minutes to start the game doesn't mean Nash is going to be able to rest the whole time he's out there; they're crossmatched so there should be some switches and there's always the ability to set a screen to force a switch. Nask is going to have to work because Tony's going to be playing around 40 min. and Hill's minutes should be in the 30's. It's just not that big of a concern for me to start the game; I have no desire to see Bogans playing significant minutes.
No, neither of us do know for certain. We're speculating in what we've seen. I believe the Spurs would be better suited to have their lesser players play in the weakside role to start the game than to have one or two of their top five doing so. The Spurs have to find minutes for Bogans and whomever else somewhere and doing it the way I suggest benefits the individual and the collective over the course of the game, IMO -- Tim and Tony do their thing to start complimented by the likes of Bogans; then you go to the bench for Manu and RJ where you let Ginobili orchestrate (and I'd like to see Blair be a part of that with Duncan off the floor -- it's a good way to create some better quality from your depth); and then you unite them all to close the half and play the majority of the rest of the game -- it's the best way, IMO, to get the best balance, continuity and rhythm with this roster . . .I know it's not known; that's what I'm saying. That lineup was actually very good together in game one, yet there's this notion that they can't play together because of the lack of spacing. I agree, Duncan and Parker should be the focal point, but what's wrong with Ginobili playing the spot up shooter role, at least to start? There's your guy who can space the floor. Play through them and let him spot up at the start, then get him out five-six minutes in and bring him back with the second unit a few minutes later, when he can be the primary creator. You're just making assumptions: "I have a hard time believing". But you don't know for certain.
What's your point?
Yes, that's exactly what it means and it's exactly why Bogans shouldn't be on the court to start. If the Spurs are going to go down (and it looks like they are), I want them to at least go down playing their best players extended minutes and playing them together. If that's not good enough, fine. But Bogans starting, I know that's not good enough.
The difference is I'm not pretending to know for certain, all I'm saying is they're the best players on the team (positionally), they've played very little together this season, there's sound logic in playing them together now and when they were played together in game one it was successful.
That all sounds great in the regular season. This is now desperation time. I don't care about balance, or getting other guys going, etc. I want the best players playing together and playing a lot. As many minutes as Bogans and the rest of the jokers that fill out this roster are off the floor, the better. You just hope that the good players get the team off to a good start and when the jokers come in for a brief stretch, they don't kill the team. If they do, you put the good players back in. To me, it really has come to that simplistic approach. I'm not advocating playing them all at once, of course. As I've said, Ginobili can come out early, play as a spot up shooter, then re-enter as the primary creator.
What's my point? Everything after the bold.
Bottom line, the Spurs aren't in a position to play a 6-man rotation over the course of this series and still have enough gas to pull it out -- they'd have a hard enough time if they had the rest and they weren't down 0-2.
And that's fine that you don't care about rhythm, balance or putting the players in the best position to find those things (it's your opinion and I can respect that), but I think it's pretty damn important; they need to spread out the trash and mix it in with the Big 3. Allowing Bogans to play on the weakside while the Spurs pound it into Tim and allow Tony to do his thing is not going to put the team in a hole, IMO. I don't see any reason why they couldn't get a lead with that group, as I have plenty of faith in Tim and Tony against Phoenix. There is only one ball.
I don't understand where you're getting some kind of certainty from my comments. IMO = In my opinion; and I've stated that I'm doing nothing but speculating on what I've seen and basing it on the knowledge I've acquired over the years. It's an educated guess. We're shooting the , not solving equations.The difference is I'm not pretending to know for certain, all I'm saying is they're the best players on the team (positionally), they've played very little together this season, there's sound logic in playing them together now and when they were played together in game one it was successful.
No, I mean the first paragraph. It doesn't really go against what I said, but you acted as if it did.
I never said play six; I've been advocating eight. News flash: They're also not in a position to start fringe NBA players or give any more minutes to scrubs like Bogans, Bonner or Mason, than necessary.
Either way they're probably doomed. All I'm saying is if that's going to be the case, at least go down playing your best players extended minutes together. It is going to put the team in a hole, because Bogans is a fringe player. You don't start him against a team with this type of firepower. Why can't Jefferson hang out on the weakside? At least he's a threat to drive their closeouts and either finish at the rim or get to the line.
I'm not getting certainty from your comments, I don't know where you got that from and I'm well aware of what that means. I just don't understand how you could completely disregard that much talent thriving at once (even though we've seen it at times), all because there isn't great three point shooting amongst the group and most of them are better with the ball than without it. You act like that means they can't succeed without the ball though; it doesn't.
Cool. Well I was responding to this:
You were talking about letting someone get off and find a rhythm, I simply pointed as to how that occurred. He didn't get hot because he wasn't having to defend someone, he got hot because the Spurs played him softly and poorly -- they were taken by surprise by their own admission. That's all I was getting at.
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Hill, 'Dyess, Jefferson, Blair and ... Bonner? Bogans? Mason? Temple? A little T. H. C.I never said play six; I've been advocating eight. News flash: They're also not in a position to start fringe NBA players or give any more minutes to scrubs like Bogans, Bonner or Mason, than necessary.
Point is, they need another shooter on the perimeter and Bonner's been useless. So if he's in the 8-man rotation, what's that really going to do? It's not like he helps the cause in any other facet of the game. They've basically got to have a 9-man rotation because you can't count on the eighth-man. I'd also prefer they had someone on the perimeter to give Manu a blow and not have him playing 40-minutes, but that seems just about impossible -- Ginobili usually gives you diminishing returns once his numbers get into that range.
Arranging chairs on the anic ... that's what it feels like right about now. I'm simply suggesting what I believe is the best way to get the most out of their talent and give them the best chance to win a game and hopefully the series. I understand your stance, we all want to see the best talent possible playing all 48-minutes. But there's extenuating cir stances that we've all got to take into consideration in order to assess how it is to best navigate them. I believe this team has to get something from a few of their players outside the top six, not unlike what we're seeing from the Suns, and I'm simply stating what I believe is the best way to accomplish that. It seems an effort in futility, since the Spurs just don't seem to have the weapons, but getting by without them isn't something I believe to be feasible.Either way they're probably doomed. All I'm saying is if that's going to be the case, at least go down playing your best players extended minutes together. It is going to put the team in a hole, because Bogans is a fringe player. You don't start him against a team with this type of firepower. Why can't Jefferson hang out on the weakside? At least he's a threat to drive their closeouts and either finish at the rim or get to the line.
This is what I was referring to.
As for not believing they can thrive together, that's not what I was implying. I simply believe it's better, and easier, for players to find their rhythm and get into a flow when they're getting consistent touches and are the focal point of the offense. Simply putting more talent out on the floor doesn't make the team necessarily more potent -- you need players to play roles and sometimes you just need them to get out of the way. Ginobili and Jefferson aren't role players. In the case of Manu, you can't have him an afterthought or waste his minutes having watch the show, so to speak. I'm not saying they can't play together, I'm saying for the purposes of this series Tim and Tony should be the guys the Spurs are looking to ride. They need to get out of the gate with them and set the tone. Once that happens, you hand the reins over to Manu and let him get RJ and possibly Blair rolling; everyone gets their touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and confidence, and that will hopefully carry over to end the half and eventually the game.
My only intention is to put the individual players in the best position possible to play to the best of their ability. And I believe giving players more quality looks and touches, where they're not playing on the weakside and a bit of an afterthought, is the best way to do it. Once they've broken the proverbial sweat and have had the opportunities to find that rhythm, then you put the puzzle together (whether it's worked out the way you hoped or not).
Ain't no certainty in basketball, you just control what you can control and put your team in the best position possible to succeed -- that's all I'm trying to do.
Thank you for explaining to me what occurred, because I had no idea whatsoever. Where did I say "Nash got hot because he didn't have to defend someone"?Cool. Well I was responding to this:
You were talking about letting someone get off and find a rhythm, I simply pointed as to how that occurred. He didn't get hot because he wasn't having to defend someone, he got hot because the Spurs played him softly and poorly -- they were taken by surprise by their own admission. That's all I was getting at.
Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Hill, 'Dyess, Jefferson, Blair and ... Bonner? Bogans? Mason? Temple? A little T. H. C.
Point is, they need another shooter on the perimeter and Bonner's been useless. So if he's in the 8-man rotation, what's that really going to do? It's not like he helps the cause in any other facet of the game. They've basically got to have a 9-man rotation because you can't count on the eighth-man. I'd also prefer they had someone on the perimeter to give Manu a blow and not have him playing 40-minutes, but that seems just about impossible -- Ginobili usually gives you diminishing returns once his numbers get into that range.
Arranging chairs on the anic ... that's what it feels like right about now. I'm simply suggesting what I believe is the best way to get the most out of their talent and give them the best chance to win a game and hopefully the series. I understand your stance, we all want to see the best talent possible playing all 48-minutes. But there's extenuating cir stances that we've all got to take into consideration in order to assess how it is to best navigate them. I believe this team has to get something from a few of their players outside the top six, not unlike what we're seeing from the Suns, and I'm simply stating what I believe is the best way to accomplish that. It seems an effort in futility, since the Spurs just don't seem to have the weapons, but getting by without them isn't something I believe to be feasible.
This is what I was referring to.
As for not believing they can thrive together, that's not what I was implying. I simply believe it's better, and easier, for players to find their rhythm and get into a flow when they're getting consistent touches and are the focal point of the offense. Simply putting more talent out on the floor doesn't make the team necessarily more potent -- you need players to play roles and sometimes you just need them to get out of the way. Ginobili and Jefferson aren't role players. In the case of Manu, you can't have him an afterthought or waste his minutes having watch the show, so to speak. I'm not saying they can't play together, I'm saying for the purposes of this series Tim and Tony should be the guys the Spurs are looking to ride. They need to get out of the gate with them and set the tone. Once that happens, you hand the reins over to Manu and let him get RJ and possibly Blair rolling; everyone gets their touches and opportunities to find a rhythm and confidence, and that will hopefully carry over to end the half and eventually the game.
My only intention is to put the individual players in the best position possible to play to the best of their ability. And I believe giving players more quality looks and touches, where they're not playing on the weakside and a bit of an afterthought, is the best way to do it. Once they've broken the proverbial sweat and have had the opportunities to find that rhythm, then you put the puzzle together (whether it's worked out the way you hoped or not).
Ain't no certainty in basketball, you just control what you can control and put your team in the best position possible to succeed -- that's all I'm trying to do.
Bogans would be my eighth. They may need another shooter, but they don't have another shooter. You don't just play someone, because they're technically known as a shooter. Bonner has proven unequivocally that he can't shoot in the pressure cooker that is the playoffs. So seven and eight are already useless and you think this makes it a good idea to go to nine? I don't care about balance or resting players at this point, it's about having as few of the scrubs on the court as possible. Hopefully in their limited minutes they don't kill the team, but I wouldn't play more of them or start one of them at the expense of having the best possible lineup out there a lot of the time. Ginobili will have to suck it up and play close to what star players play in the playoffs, even if it's not ideal for him. Too bad if his play suffers. Duncan, on bad knees with quad tendonosis has twice this playoffs gutted out an entire half.
That's all I'm suggesting as well, but you've gone timvp on me, seemingly incensed that I'd even have the audacity to challenge you. Few being the key word there. What's wrong with two more, rather than three?
Fine (in terms of what you were referring to). Maybe you're not in love with that lineup or want to balance it out better, I get that, but to act like it makes no sense doesn't make sense. On this team, Jefferson is a role player and Ginobili, at various points in his career, has been too. How quickly you forget that it wasn't that long ago that he was the clear third wheel and often fed off of Duncan or Parker. Think back to the '07 run, where he didn't come alive until well into the Suns series and even then, he was generally the third option throughout that run. The team lacks three-point shooting, so why not have him spot up to start and take more catch-and-shoot ones than off the dribble, step back ones? It's not wasting minutes, if anything, it allows him to not exert as much energy when on the court and isn't that what everyone is always worried about with him? We're saying the same thing: Play through Duncan and Parker, then hand the reins over to Ginobili.
They can all have quality looks and touches playing together and no one should have to exert too much energy carrying the team. Look at last game, the Spurs came out early and set two plays for Jefferson to get him off early and what followed? He went on to have a productive game. And it didn't take a bunch of scrubs surrounding him for him to do this.
That's all I'm trying to do too, I just think it should be done a different way, which you either can't seem to grasp, accept or both.
Last edited by TD 21; 05-06-2010 at 07:32 PM.
First off, you gotta help me with the quoting, bro. I wasn't incensed at the conversation, I just responded quickly and misinterpreted a particular statement. It's a pain in the ass and tough on me to respond as quickly as I'd like having to keep scrolling up to find my place -- I'm sure it's not all that difficult for some but it's obviously causing me some confusion. If you could just single out what you want to debate or do something similar to what I do I'd much appreciate it.
I believe your initial argument (or one of) was that Bogans starting meant Nash would be resting, so that was more than enough reason to nix the idea -- I don't feel like going back and reading all of this at the moment, but there was an argument to something of the effect. That's where my response was coming from.
You're just missing my point. I don't feel the need to play Bogans for his shooting prowess or offensive ability. But I do believe the Spurs have to get a contribution from him if they want to win -- the Suns have edged the Spurs because they've had their role players step up. And since I think we can both agree Bonner and Mason aren't going to give the Spurs much of anything -- even assuming they warranted the playing time -- it's got to come from Bogans, Temple or Hairston (and the latter two I highly doubt see minutes with Pop at the helm). The Spurs, like it or not, can't outplay both the Suns starters and second unit with only their top 6 or 7 players. Matchups won't allow it ... their stamina won't allow it. I know you're going to say " stamina" or "tough " but it is what it is -- you can't manipulate the E on the gas tank. So the Spurs need a contribution from Bogans. They need him to have a Udoka-like impact against New Orleans in '08. I've told you how I believe the best way to do that is, you disagree. That's fine; just don't confuse my reasons to give him time: Necessary evil -- he's a meat shield not a weapon.Bogans would be my eighth. They may need another shooter, but they don't have another shooter. You don't just play someone, because they're technically known as a shooter.
I didn't mean they need to play 8 or 9 as a full rotation. What I was trying to get at was there's a great possibility that the eighth man would be a failure requiring you to look for someone else. You just can't count on Bonner, Bogans or Blair to be there to bridge the gap. They need someone to give them something. Someone -- that at a minimum -- can tread water with there minutes. Someone to knock a couple of shots down or play some solid D. Something -- hopefully the friendly confines will remedy the play to some degree.Bonner has proven unequivocally that he can't shoot in the pressure cooker that is the playoffs. So seven and eight are already useless and you think this makes it a good idea to go to nine? I don't care about balance or resting players at this point, it's about having as few of the scrubs on the court as possible. Hopefully in their limited minutes they don't kill the team, but I wouldn't play more of them or start one of them at the expense of having the best possible lineup out there a lot of the time. Ginobili will have to suck it up and play close to what star players play in the playoffs, even if it's not ideal for him. Too bad if his play suffers. Duncan, on bad knees with quad tendonosis has twice this playoffs gutted out an entire half.
I think I've probably addressed this in prior comments or in this reply, so I won't expound much. It's not about the Spurs' best players, it's the need for their role players to contribute. Balancing that with the best way to utilize the talent in the best, most efficient and fruitful manner is what I'm trying to discern. That's the reasoning for my lineup suggestion -- one of two lineups that's borne quantifiable success -- and it's basis of my debate. I'm trying to make chicken salad and it looks like we're left with chicken .Fine (in terms of what you were referring to). Maybe you're not in love with that lineup or want to balance it out better, I get that, but to act like it makes no sense doesn't make sense. On this team, Jefferson is a role player and Ginobili, at various points in his career, has been too. How quickly you forget that it wasn't that long ago that he was the clear third wheel and often fed off of Duncan or Parker. Think back to the '07 run, where he didn't come alive until well into the Suns series and even then, he was generally the third option throughout that run. The team lacks three-point shooting, so why not have him spot up to start and take more catch-and-shoot ones than off the dribble, step back ones? It's not wasting minutes, if anything, it allows him to not exert as much energy when on the court and isn't that what everyone is always worried about with him? We're saying the same thing: Play through Duncan and Parker, then hand the reins over to Ginobili.
Again, I believe I've addressed this but if I haven't, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'm just trying to account for as many variables as possible and find the best balance -- for the team and individuals -- that'll aid them in their effort moving forward. You disagree, cool -- it makes these conversations much more interesting.They can all have quality looks and touches playing together and no one should have to exert too much energy carrying the team. Look at last game, the Spurs came out early and set two plays for Jefferson to get him off early and what followed? He went on to have a productive game. And it didn't take a bunch of scrubs surrounding him for him to do this.
I see. It all makes sense now.
I know you don't feel the need to play Bogans for those reasons, but those are precisely the reasons why I wouldn't start him. Particularly tomorrow. I expect a desperate Spurs team that jumps out to an early lead. Assuming they accomplish this, Bogans should be spotted in when they have a relatively comfortable lead and you just hope that in his five minute stint, that he doesn't kill the team. How did Udoka have that impact? Off the bench. I never confused your reasoning for giving him time, in fact I said I agree, I'd have him in my eight man rotation; just not starting.
I know what you were getting at and I went along with this thinking...until recently. These guys are so bad that I think one just flat out has to be cut out of the rotation and that one is Bonner. No more chances. His minutes should be given to McDyess and Blair. Blair is an insanely productive per minute scorer and rebounder. Whether you think he's in over his head as a rookie in this situation or not, matchup wise this is a good series for him, but more than that he's just due for a game where he scores and racks up rebounds.
I'm past that point. It's about playing the best players together for a lot of minutes, spotting in two others (because, as you say, it's a "necessary evil") and hoping that in their stints they don't kill the team. But what the team probably can't afford at this point is getting off to a poor start and I think starting one of the scrubs would increase the odds of that.
Nope, you didn't address this one and it's an indisputable point. It flies in the face of your argument. I think you're over thinking things and trying to relate how the Spurs functioned in the past to now. The problem with that is this is a completely different team.Again, I believe I've addressed this but if I haven't, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'm just trying to account for as many variables as possible and find the best balance -- for the team and individuals -- that'll aid them in their effort moving forward. You disagree, cool -- it makes these conversations much more interesting.
Right, Udoka came off the bench. But I feel Bogans' best opportunity for success in aiding the cause is with Tim and Tony. I just happen to believe that the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup is one that gets the team off to a solid start and that second unit comes in and wreaks havoc -- if you don't have separation from the first unit, it's quite feasible you get it with your second; the Spurs found success and a rhythm with it before Tony went down. I think our biggest point of contention is the first five-minutes and what we perceive the lineup's outcome to be. I simply don't believe what I'm suggesting puts them in the hole or at a disadvantage to start the game.
If the Spurs can get away with doing it, I'm all for it. I just find it hard to believe Pop can ride these players to four wins in their next five playing every-other-day with that short of a rotation, or without getting a contribution from those type of players. I'm pretty confident for Game 3 and 4 but there isn't a bone in my body that believes the Spurs are going to win a conference semifinal without the emergence of a lesser role player or two. I hope I'm wrong, history just tells me otherwise -- the playoffs have a way of exposing teams the deeper they go ... the Spurs' role-players have been done exposed.
This leads me to believe we're actually closer than I thought. I agree with all of that, the exception being the start of the game (but I just addressed that).
I'm pretty sure I've addressed it but what the ... I'm here. Ain't got to do (besides drink a beer or two), so here we go . . .
How do you figure (that it flies in the face of my argument)? My approach is one that's not as shortsighted for the game. It's not about instant gratification or shooting your wad before halftime. The Spurs came out and really made a point of going to Tim, and yes, RJ got some things to go for him, but Manu took a backseat and the team ended up blowing the lead they had when they had to really go to the bench.
See, I'm looking at this -- as it pertains to a single game -- big picture. I'm looking for the Spurs to build as the game goes and play a steady and consistent game, one with minimized ebbs and flows, that has the individual and the team, as collective, playing their best ball come the fourth quarter. I'll take a lesser percentage chance of going up 10-12 early if I believe I'll have a lead or a chance to win with my players and their team playing their best when it counts. I'll take Ginobili coming in off the bench after being able to get a read on the game and immediately being handed the reins to be the head of the snake. I'll take the prospect of a more confident and more involved Blair off the bench because he's been paired with Manu -- a means to create a better quality of their limited depth. I'll live with the results of an RJ who doesn't get to start but plays with Ginobili and gets better opportunities -- for all of his breakthrough offense ... the guy's defense more than negated it. Simply put, I just flat-out believe that the lineup Pop settled on before Tony went down is the best way to get the most out of the individuals and their best option moving forward. They need balance. They need more contributions from their role players. And even if the only role player to actually get off in this scenario is Blair ... that's one more player than they have now.
Last edited by Blackjack; 05-07-2010 at 02:23 AM.
It's been broke since five minutes into Game 1.
[QUOTE]To me that's too far back and the sample size was too small to say, "let's go back to that because it had (brief) success". The first five minutes are definitely out biggest point of contention. I believe it's vital, particularly at home when you're the team without home court in the series and are now down 2-0, to get off to a good start. Not that I believe this team would quit if they didn't, but at the same time it's already going to be an uphill battle; that hill will only look more daunting to climb with a slow start and as I said, starting a player that minimal against a team with this type of firepower, I believe, increases the odds of a slow start.
[QUOTE]For the next two games, they've probably got to do it to win. You don't leave months and months of hard work and preparation to chance by attempting to squeeze a few more minutes out of scrubs. If the Spurs win these next two, then game five becomes like the Mavs series. Take your chances early, if it looks bleak pull the plug and rest the key players for game six. Then if they win that, they get two days off before game seven. I think it is feasible to get by on eight and too risky at this juncture to attempt to get by on any more than that.
[QUOTE]That's what I was saying in a previous post, we actually agree on quite a bit of this.
[QUOTE]It flies in the face of your argument because you have this idea that Jefferson thrives with the ball and that he can't do that by playing with all of Duncan, McDyess, Ginobili and Parker, at once. But in the example I gave, he was playing with three of the four at the time (Hill was in for Parker). Like I said, in my lineup, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. It doesn't have to be an either/or. All that has to occur is Ginobili has to be pulled roughly halfway through the first and third quarters, then he can re-enter a few minutes later to be the primary creator for the second unit. So start him off primarily as a spot up shooter (with some pick-and-roll opportunities), then play with the ball primarily in his hands later.
That's what I'm looking to do as well, just with a different rotation. In my proposed rotation, Ginobili would play with Blair. I don't think the Spurs can afford to, against a team with this much firepower, not start two of their top five scorers.
To me that's too far back and the sample size was too small to say, "let's go back to that because it had (brief) success". The first five minutes are definitely out biggest point of contention. I believe it's vital, particularly at home when you're the team without home court in the series and are now down 2-0, to get off to a good start. Not that I believe this team would quit if they didn't, but at the same time it's already going to be an uphill battle; that hill will only look more daunting to climb with a slow start and as I said, starting a player that minimal against a team with this type of firepower, I believe, increases the odds of a slow start.
For the next two games, they've probably got to do it to win. You don't leave months and months of hard work and preparation to chance by attempting to squeeze a few more minutes out of scrubs. If the Spurs win these next two, then game five becomes like the Mavs series. Take your chances early, if it looks bleak pull the plug and rest the key players for game six. Then if they win that, they get two days off before game seven. I think it is feasible to get by on eight and too risky at this juncture to attempt to get by on any more than that.
That's what I was saying in a previous post, we actually agree on quite a bit of this.
It flies in the face of your argument because you have this idea that Jefferson thrives with the ball and that he can't do that by playing with all of Duncan, McDyess, Ginobili and Parker, at once. But in the example I gave, he was playing with three of the four at the time (Hill was in for Parker). Like I said, in my lineup, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. It doesn't have to be an either/or. All that has to occur is Ginobili has to be pulled roughly halfway through the first and third quarters, then he can re-enter a few minutes later to be the primary creator for the second unit. So start him off primarily as a spot up shooter (with some pick-and-roll opportunities), then play with the ball primarily in his hands later.
That's what I'm looking to do as well, just with a different rotation. In my proposed rotation, Ginobili would play with Blair. I don't think the Spurs can afford to, against a team with this much firepower, not start two of their top five scorers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
