I say give Manu a leash and attach RJ to it.
I see the lineup on opening night looking like this:
Parker - Hill - Jefferson (Assuming he comes back) - Duncan - McDyess
As the season progresses, I feel Anderson will earn the starting SG spot. If he doesnt do well, then I say Hill is the SG for the whole season.
Parker - Anderson (or Hill) - Jefferson - Duncan - Splitter
I hope he starts, I think he deserves to after all these years. Hes openly expressed that he would prefer to start but will do anything for the team. I'm not saying hes unhappy but who wouldnt prefer to start?
Maybe start:
Parker
Manu
LLE/Left over MLE defensive SF
Duncan
Splitter
Bench:
Hill
Anderson
RJ
Blair
Dice
I do see a problem of the lack of play making with that lineup.. so the team may be more effective with Manu off the bench.
Does anyone think Splitter will start right away? Or will Pop let McDyess/Bonner start first since they know the system more than Splitter?
I'm thinking Pop will have Tiago come off the bench first and then ease his way into the starting lineup.
I'm hoping when the Spurs start clicking they'll have a lineup of:
Parker
Ginobili
Jefferson
Duncan
Splitter
with the bench consisting of
hill
anderson
hairston
blair
mcdyess
If they are smart they will bring Manu off the bench with Temple Anderson Blair and Splitter.
Lots of good pick and roll and pop plays possible.
Would become an athletic fun bench to watch.
Splitter will be starting on opening night IMO.. the pre season will be all he needs to prove himself.
What's the deal with Jefferson anyway? I'm assuming he didn't opt out of his 15 million without some kind of pre-arranged deal.
And I really hate the ing Parker/Manu/Jefferson starting lineup that spurs' fans keep regurgitating out like trained parrots.
If Tony Parker absolutely HAS to start so little crybabies won't get all butthurt, I'd actually prefer
Parker/Hill/Manu/Splitter/Duncan
At least in this scenario you have two floor spacers (Hill & Manu) to help open up room for Splitter and Duncan. This leaves basically Garret Temple to help run the 2nd unit, which he looks so far capable of.
Manu is too small to play SF.
That's why I think Manu should start with Tim and Tony. He won't have to be responsible for producing much and can save all that intensity for later in the game. I don't wan't him to have to carry the bench again like he has every year. Who's going to carry the bench after he leaves? He's carried it for a long time now. Also say what you want but he probably wants to start and deserves to. No wonder he had his one and only All Star appearance when he was starting.Oh god no. Hill or Manu are not point guards. Manu couldn't go a whole season having to handle the ball like that all the time. Tony should start and lead the team in MPG next season. He will be our best player.
Start your best players at every position. Pretty simple.
He's big enough IMO. Barely.
If the board pundits all say Raja Bell is big enough to play the 3, then Manu (who is a full inch or two taller and probably 20 lbs heavier) is big enough.
Manu is too small to play SF if you've got Michael Finley playing the 4 and Robert Horry playing center. In a scenario where Splitter's your starting center, Manu fits in there just fine.
Personally, I'd like to see how Parker/Ginobili/Blair/Duncan/Splitter plays. You get a lot of size, a lot of athletecism and a load of rebounding. You've also got the potential to pick and roll the other team into oblivion.
Seems to me that the 3 might be a better position for Manu to play at these days. He's not as fleet-a-foot as he used to be and tends to get burned by the quicker guards out there. A move to small forward might do him some good.
Manu would get burned by taller SFs and . . . Blair at SF? You've got to be joking! I don't agree that Raja Bell is a SF either, but he is a little bigger and stronger than Manu.
I don't think we should be going after Bell at all.
Our team was better with Manu starting.. Parker should come off the bench.
I think he is better suited off the bench, he still brings a spark.
Manu to be our starting PG! Oh noes!
Yes I said it.
*busts into typical TP fan homer mindset*
Tony Parker.must.start. He.cannot.be.a.6th.man.in.nba. It.would.cause.
my.butt.too.hurt.too.much. TP.is.the.best. Parker.Hill.Jefferson.to.be.the.
starters. It.failed.miserably.last.year.but.it.will.work.thi s.year. Parker.will.
have.monster.year. Book.it.
Yes put all of your scoring threats in to start the game. Who cares about bench points, right?
You really need to listen to yourself. Something has gone really wrong when you're trying to ridicule someone for suggesting that the Spurs start their best shooting guard at the shooting guard slot. Teams have historically started their five best players, and the sixth man award has traditionally gone to the best player who isn't a starter. These aren't new or radical concepts. You're way too close to common Spurs practice to see how bizzaro-world it's become.
Teams that don't develop their young players are the ones who don't care about bench points. Putting in a starter to carry a ty bench simply doesn't make the team better, it's just stat padding. Manu came off the bench for a decent reason at one point, and the efforts people go through to justify his coming off the bench now are just stupid.
Hey, you ridiculed me for suggesting the opposite, so, no hard feelings man.
Historically, teams put in their 5 best players for each position. Yes. But they don't ignore chemistry and maximizing offensive production. What good does it do to get out to a 7 point lead and then watch it turn into a 8 point defecit and playing catch up?
Manu became a 6th man for the same reason that exists today: Tony Parker.
Manu plays best with the ball in his hands most of the time. So does Parker. If they start, they rest at similar times and you have less capable guys trying to run an offense and produce points.
Why not bring one off the bench? Why Manu? Because he's a great distributor and runs the offense. He makes others better around him. Like you said, usually the best players start... that means the guys coming off the bench are not as good. He is the kind of player that makes them better. And he can go to town and take all the shots he wants, because he has that green light to maintain leads or cut into defecits and he is the most capable player on the court to do so (at least when the starters are sitting).
And you do want your best players on the court at the end of the game, which he is anyway.
Ditto. I'll try to keep it civil.
Weak benches lose games, and putting one of that weak bench into the starting lineup doesn't make the team better. The times that the Spurs brought Manu off the bench was when they had two or three players who started on NBA teams at his position.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Manu went to the bench on two occasions as a Spur where injuries weren't involved. The first time it was because Hedo couldn't play off the bench, and the second time it was because Finley didn't play as well off the bench. Neither time did it have anything to do with directly improving the bench. Pop suggested in an interview that it improved the bench, but that was just some additional justification for a controversial decision. The main motivation was to try to get something out of a player that was badly underperforming. Manu's numbers did go up, however. If what you're losing by not having him start is less than what he brings off the bench, it's fine. The Spurs don't have a Turkoglu, Finley, or Barry anymore to choose from.
In addition, there's not a first team and a second team and I think people miss that fact until they consider it. Nobody subs five men into the game at the six minute mark. That's why it's called a rotation. You can give Manu minutes without Parker where he's handling the ball, but having all of your threats on the floor to start and finish the game just makes sense. Always has, always will. I'd love to see someone emerge who's good enough to start, but I don't want to see the Spurs try to manufacture a starting lineup that isn't as good as Parker/Ginobili just so Manu can come off the bench.
^^ I don't think they're trying to manufacture a starting lineup that's "better". The best team is with Manu, Parker, Tim out there, that's proven at the end of the game when he puts his best players in to close the games. They are trying to just maximize their effectiveness and overall impact on the game. If someone emerges as with a capable/effective jumper, someone that contrasts Parker and Tim and JEfferson who all try to get to the basket, and catch kick-outs and hit jumpers... I think they start him.
I wish this wasn't a discussion, but with our bench, it's an issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
