Reply With Quote
I would rather give McGrady a shot over Simmons. More likely to catch lightning in a bottle.
Pop put Bonner on Artest and Jefferson on Odom because Odom is more effective and more of a threat off the dribble. Jefferson had the athleticism necessary to be effective against Odom.
It wasn't because R.J can't guard Artest. Artest was more of a spot up shooter anyway in the Lakers offense (never having the ball to create; which is why Spurs could get away with Bonner guarding him).
I would rather give McGrady a shot over Simmons. More likely to catch lightning in a bottle.
I think McGrady is done too, but he has more of a chance to contribute as a point-forward IMO, allowing Manu to move to the starting unit, if the Spurs want that..I definitely agree that T-Mac would have more potential to find some of his talent back..
McGrady would definitely cost more though..
Assuming we sign RJ, it appears the Spurs have no opening for another SF in the lineup.
PG - Parker, Hill, Temple
SG - Ginobili, Anderson, Hairston
SF - RJ, Gee
PF - Duncan, Bonner, Blair
C - Splitter, McDyess
That is 13 players, one player too many for the daily rotation. Either there's going to be a 2 for 1 trade in the near future or an unguaranteed contract (i.e. Temple, Hairston, Gee) will be waived.
There are 2 players missing but this likely be filled by more d-league players.
Hairston and Gee are most likely competing for the same spot.
I was actually watching the games against the Lakers from last season. What Phil did with Artest against us was to have him backdoor cut to the middle right under the basket. Against RJ he just muscled his way for a couple of and1, easy layups or automatic fouls. RJ actually lost him entirely on a couple of occasions. In the last game Pop put Bonner on him and it worked pretty well, because of the added size, Artest was basically hesitant to bring the ball up. So he stayed on the perimeter and tried to post up Odom, who I guess thought had a mismatch with RJ on him. Now, don't forget that Bynum was missing from this game, so Odom was actually playing the post quite a bit. That said, Odom simply doesn't have a post game, and I rather have him taking fadeaway jumpers than what he was doing the two games prior: driving right around and over Dice or Bonner and scoring at will.
In Simmons defense, he only played in 23 games and 395 minutes last season. He was injured to start the season, the Nets were historically bad and had two young players capable of playing his position and he was a veteran in the last year of his deal, so it made sense to play them and not play him.
I don't know whether he's done or not, but at 30 and as a career 40.1% three-point shooter, I think he's worthy of another shot somewhere for the minimum.
As recently as two seasons ago, he was still an NBA player. Not necessarily a good one, or a starting caliber one and clearly an overpaid one, but an NBA player nonetheless. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'd be very surprised if Centerpiece returned. The Spurs have clearly prioritized three-point shooting and he doesn't fit the bill. Besides, the Spurs have a younger, more athletic version of him already.
Even if it is the same spot, that still makes 12 roster spots occupied.
No sense signing a free-agent without a roster spot open for that player.
Temple will not suit up because all the pg minutes will be taken up between ghill and parker. So he is not one of the 12. Only one out of hairston and gee will suit up. That is 11 out of 12 spots filled. We still need one more FA signing.
Disagree, despite the effectiveness of Hill and Parker, I thing you'll need at least 3 point guards in the rotation during the regular season.
He will not see the court as the third string pg. I think we need 5 sg/sf, just like we have 5 pf/c on the 12 roster. It will help us if they get in foul trouble. Also if one guy is not shooting well we can just put in another guy. It also helps with match-ups. We just do not need a third string pg because pg is one of are strengths. We will not have match issues or bad games from the pg position. If there is foul trouble at pg we can then just play manu at the pg spot.
It's July 19th and Jefferson is the most realistic/most viable option...
Who would have thunk it???
I doubt Gee suits up. He likely spends the entire year in Austin with just a few call-ups to get his feet wet like we did with Hairston a few years ago. He looks very intriguing, but hes got a long way to go.
I'm really not sold on Hairston. I think those two compete for a spot and only one of them gets it. But it probably makes more sense to keep Gee as he can to to Austin for one more year like Hairston cannot.
The Spurs need Hairston, or someone, at the SF position who can play some defense. As much as he was hated on this board, Bogans had that role last year and someone has to fill it this year.
Right, a lot of people are disregarding Hairston and his play, mainly because we've just seen the Summer League and the big topic has been Alonzo Gee. Hairston is a better player than Gee, I highly doubt that it's a tossup between them.
But Gee is fresh in everyone's mind. He MUST be better.
Ahh, yah... can't wait to bring back that dynamite Parker/Jefferson starting combo.. just can't wait.
Just like you couldn't wait for Splitter to stay in europe?
Last edited by yavozerb; 07-19-2010 at 08:15 AM.
Wait, is Matt Barnes available at a fraction of the cost of Jefferson? And he's never been accused of being soft?
Who would have thunk it?
There's a reason why he's never been in the same team for two consecutive seasons, apart from GS, but they couldn't wait to kick him out. He's a , he's also a much worse basketball player compared to RJ.
Also, Pop doesn't coach assholes.
I don't think Barnes is the kind of player RC talks about when he says players for this team need to have certain character fiber. Sure, we have had some misfits before, like Glenn Robinson, but they were already on their way out of the league pretty much.
I just don't see Pop putting up with his at ude.
Wow, you really hate Matt Barnes, almost sounds personal.
IIRC there used to be a somebody on the spurs with a little nasty in his game. A little dirty. Bruce Bowen ring a bell? I guess you forgot about ol' nasty Bruce. The spurs could use a guy like that, huh?
As far as being a worse basketball player than RJ that's debatable. I'd take Barnes, myself, at a fraction of the cost. He's a better defensive player and he would bring a toughness and an edge to the team. He's a better shooter than RJ, IMO.
Remember the spurs are supposedly looking for defense first and 3pt shooting second out of that position.. so who cares if RJ is more talented, when he doesn't fit in the starting lineup.. IMO it's as much to do with being a "fit" to the team and last year proved RJ and Parker are not good fits. Barnes would fit the mold of defense first, 3pt shooter second.
Sure he's a journeyman player that's been bouncing around, but so was Bogans last year. Barnes however actually brings something to the table the spurs need at the 3, which is size... the guy is a full 6'8" and has equivalent length of a 6'10" player. Combine that with decent lateral quickness and you have a fairly decent defensive stopper.
C'mon BG_Spurs_Fan what ya got against Matt? , we could have two Matt's on the team, wouldn't that be cool?
What "at ude" do you speak of? He's no different than Bruce Bowen, except Bowen was more subtle in the way he went about his business, where Barnes is in your face.
Fickleness has got us where exactly the last two years? Oh, right. 1st round exit and 2nd round sweep. But at least we got a team of choir boys.
I think what they mean by saying Barnes has an "at ude" is that he is a dumbass. Bowen was a smart player. RJ is a much better player than Barnes, and it's not really debatable.
In about 7 less minutes a game Matt Barnes outrebounded Jefferson, shot a better % from the field (and from the 3pt line), almost out-assisted him, and this doesn't even mention defense (which is Barnes strong suit). And your saying it's not even debatable?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions