Reply With Quote
I remember a time where I was smart enough to just leave a post as succinct and to the point as that. But I may have been dreaming.
lol @ saying Malik has no lateral quickness while our starting SF let's people go by like nobody is there. And Bogans? Bogans and defense shouldn't be in the same sentence, period.
I remember a time where I was smart enough to just leave a post as succinct and to the point as that. But I may have been dreaming.
I have told you multiple time i thought he could contribute. I followed the summer league as well as the preseason and enjoyed watching him. Malik has a better offensive game and is much more athletic than Bogans, and if he were better than Bogans defensively he would have received more minutes. If you'd rather insist on their being a conspiracy then so be it.
You're being irrational because your distraught. Malik has a different skill set than Bogans so im not exactly sure what role he would have been given. Bogans was given that role because it fit his style. I cant understand why you assume Malik was groomed for a "Bowen" role.
Spot minutes aren't meant to be consistent. That's why they're spot minutes. Players who perform well with sporadic minutes get consistent minutes.
Ultimately, when it comes to Hairston, your emotional highs and lows have not changed how i feel about him. I liked him being on the roster. I still think he has potential. I thought it would have been interesting to see him as the backup SF, but apparently the Spurs don't agree...and neither do any other NBA teams. I can accept that. Your over the top praising of him, which you claim is tongue-in-cheek, is really just something i find odd.funny thing is, you and others can be so dismissive of Hairston's ability because you don't like how some of us have fun with THC or because people like myself have been a fan before he was a Spur, you just feel the need to on the guy to prove a point to us. Keith Bogans was playing the minutes he should have been playing. Keith Bogans. You do realize this is the guy you're saying Malik had no business playing in front of or that he didn't show enough to deserve a look, right? Keith Bogans. The Bulldog. The Centerpiece. Yeah. That guy. At least you and a few others are consistent with the failed logic, though.
When the Spurs signed him, Malik was neither a "no-doubt" prospect nor an NBA player who had proven his worth. Ian was also neither of those things when the Mavs signed him a couple weeks ago. Why are there so many conditions involved for this guy to work out as a rotation player?
As someone who liked and rooted for Malik, im not sure why I would cause myself to speak negatively about Malik.
And your fascination with Bogans is somewhat puzzling. You do realize he saw very little action towards the end of the season, and almost no time in the playoffs, right? And you do realize Pop was being facetious when he referred to bogans as the centerpiece, right?
Last edited by jag; 07-30-2010 at 01:29 AM.
My comment about his lateral quickness had nothing to do with a Bogans/Hairston comparison. Neither Bogans nor Hairston showed great ability guarding quick players on the perimeter. Bogans proved to be smarter defensively than Hairston, and that's why Hairston didn't take his minutes.
You do a great job of advocating for Hairston as long as context isn't taken into account.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Pop went with Bogans because he was a vet and he knew what he would get out of him. He wanted as much certainty and stability surrounding a group that was anything but cohesive after a roster overhaul. There's no conspiracy, just a poor decision -- a predilection for the old, known quan y rather than the possibility of any uncertainty or upside .
I'm not distraught or irrational. Perplexed? A bit, probably shouldn't be, but a bit. You just still fail to comprehend. I never said Malik was Bowen. I even said I'm not comparing them. I meant the players. Are we clear? But let me ask you something, was he not in compe ion with Bogans? Was Malik not there to be a defensive presence and hopefully grow into a small forward of the future (backing up or starting)? Malik's role would've been the same one Bogans assumed. Bogans ain't Bowen and just because he's bald and shoots from the corner doesn't make him a better fit for the Spurs. He can't shoot. People bagging on Malik's shot when there's no sample size to choose from with the Spurs (and they completely dismiss his shooting at Oregon or the D-League) and saying he's not as good or better defender than Bogans aren't watching the same game. The Spurs would have been better off playing Malik instead of Bogans last year. That's not fanboy talk, it's logic. Bogans had no business being given the leeway he was.You're being being irrational because your distraught. Malik has a different skill set than Bogans so im not exactly sure what role he would have been given. Bogans was given that role because it fit his style. I cant understand why you assume Malik was groomed for a "Bowen" role.
Spot minutes aren't 2 seconds. And if you're going to tell me the Spurs couldn't have used Malik for 5-10 minutes in the first half of just about every game to buy time for their vets and see if he got going or not, I don't know what to tell you. They were playing Bogans and Mason minutes when they should have known damn well they weren't good enough basketball players to count on down the stretch. Hairston probably wasn't either but at least there was a shot -- when you can play D as well as he can and bring the energy and athleticism to game as he can, you at least leave open the possibility he could help you in some facet. Bogans is a one-dimensional defender who's not all that good of a defender and Mason was a shooter that couldn't shoot. Pop stuck to his vets, and it was to his fault (as it has been the last few years).Spot minutes aren't meant to be consistent. That's why they're spot minutes. Players who perform well with sporadic minutes get consistent minutes.
What highs and lows? I told you why I didn't like the move, explained my reasoning and you've yet to refute one thing I've said with any logical response. Why were the Spurs better off in playing Bogans over Malik? Why am I and others so off base as to think that the Spurs could've and would've benefited from the guy had they actually utilized him? Where's my over-the-top praising of him? Honestly, where did I say anything that was outlandish or wasn't true about Hairston as a player, the fact that he may have been their best perimeter defender on the roster last year? Seeing as Ginobili can't be taking on those responsibilities and Hill's 6-2, I don't see how that could be over the top. He was arguably their best perimeter defender last year. Call it an indictment of the team or whatever you want, but the Spurs needed help on that end of the floor and didn't throw him a real bone -- and the report says Malik requested the release. Apparently, you're assuming the Spurs didn't believe in Malik ... apparently.Ultimately, when it comes to Hairston, your emotional highs and lows have not changed how i feel about him. I liked him being on the roster. I still think he has potential. I thought it would have been interesting to see him as the backup SF, but apparently the Spurs don't agree...and neither do any other NBA teams. I can accept that. Your over the top praising of him, which you claim is tongue-in-cheek, is really just something i find odd.
Ian Mahinmi's 6-11 and has shown some impressive talent. That's what happens with Bigs. People find reasons to like them and take a chance on them. 6-5 wings that don't get playing time aren't all that appealing.When the Spurs signed him, Malik was neither a "no-doubt" prospect nor an NBA player who had proven his worth. Ian was also neither of those things when the Mavs signed him a couple weeks ago. Why are there so many conditions involved for this guy to work out as a rotation player?
It's not about Malik. We've established that. You've just felt compelled to dismiss him as a means to show your annoyance with the people that believe the Spurs screwed up when it comes to him.As someone who liked and rooted for Malik, im not sure why I would cause myself to speak negatively about Malik.
Fascination, more like can't understand how it is you fail to recognize that's why Malik didn't see any real playing time. Why he was never given the opportunity he should have earned prior to the regular season. Was Bogans losing time towards the end of the season and seeing a diminished role, yeah. And? The Spurs play 82 games and if you're smart you do you're tinkering around at the beginning of the season, find out exactly what you have throughout your roster and then set a rotation and trim the fat as the playoffs roll around. Now I realize they got screwed with some injuries and had problems incorporating a bunch of new players onto the roster, but why was it that Bogans was chosen to be a stabilizer? He just got outplayed by Hairston, someone who was actually familiar with the Spurs and their system.And your fascination with Bogans is somewhat puzzling. You do realize he saw very little action towards the end of the season, and almost no time in the playoffs, right?
The Spurs screwed the pooch with that decision. Did it cost them a championship or are they going to be looked at as morons because Malik's going to be an All-Star someday? No, no one ever said that. But they made a poor decision and it wound up costing them and a player some valuable time.
No, Pop was being facetious when he talked about the Gasol trade. There was nothing facetious about what he said about Bogans. I'll admit it's been blown overboard because the way it came across and that I know what he meant, as in the importance for the defensive role on the perimeter and how if Bogans is playing competently things can fall into place, but there was nothing facetious about it. It was about the importance of the role and assignment. He just had a player that was nowhere near talented enough to assume the role and he wasn't willing to entrust the role to a young and unproven Hairston. That's really all this was about: a coach set in his ways.And you do realize Pop was being facetious when he referred to bogans as the centerpiece, right?
Why are some of you so ing sad about him go?
If the Spurs thought that he was that good they would not let him go.
I don't really care about him, cause he didn't do anything in 2 years. This is like being sad cause we will not re-sign Bogans.
This isn't about Hairston anymore, it's about failed logic and those who would like to perpetuate it.
Bogans is neither laterally quick or an intelligent defender. Hairston didn't take his minutes because Bogans was a vet that Pop thought could be steadily average. He was wrong.
You have countless excuses for why he didn't earn rotation minutes, and you can spin and type, but practice and spot minutes are where unproven players prove their worth.
If the Spurs had use for Malik he would still be on the roster.
There isnt some deep emotional meaning behind all this. If it makes you feel better to think I dislike Malik because of your immoderate infatuation, then so be it. In reality, I enjoyed watching him and wish he would have seen more floor time. I would have liked to see him stay with the Spurs and continue developing. Unfortunately Spurs didn't think he showed enough.
well on the bright side, we wont have to here stupid "hariston>rj" takes from tothrowed anymore.
One thing is for sure : Spurs are tendencially conservative, and when they take a riosk is just 'cause there's no other choice than that.
They have a great amount of difficulty to trust and give playing time chances to people that doesn't already have a good nba pedigree.
IMHO it's a problem that takes you to too many wrong choices...
When the Spurs have taken a risk with a young and nba unproven player was just because there was no other chance than that...see Parker (we had -at the time - no player worth considering to be a playmaker...) or Manu (only after a very large amount of time Pop decided to play him constantly, and at the time there was no one just comparable with the talent level of Manu).
The Scola trade is another example...they thought that gaining three/four million $ for one year was better than a probably good - but still nba unproven and so risky - asset for the long term in team's future.
The playing time given to Mahinmi end, as last, Hairston, is another example...no way that in a so long regular season you don't see matches to play your unexperienced players at the sole goal of build their confidence.
The too much time given to Finley in years past is another example of this...very good nba pedigree but limited phisical resources (see the comparison about playing tiime with Spurs and Celtics last year).
Going on this way, ther's no chance to develop confidence in your young players...you have to give up some if you want to take something more.
That said, differently ftrom Mahinmi's case, I'm sceptic Hairston had what was nevcessary to have success in the league...but it's a point that he did everything he could to have a fair chance and that- like for Mahinmi (but Mahinmi showed that he could give a good apport to our team) - he didn't have enough time and "green light" to show his contribution
I don't get the people who continue building their arguments around the old saw that Pop won't play the yoots, or that the Spurs stopped holding practices to the extent that they couldn't even evaluate the caliber of their team.
If Pop was sitting on this arsenal of sleeping giants like Mahinmi and Hairston and Haislip (not to mention all the James Whites and Linton Johnsons over the years) because he was simply too squeamish to play them despite their extraordinary talents, the argument boils down to the absurdity of a professional basketball coach who would rather his team lose a season they were expected to compete or even dominate in (in the twilight of his franchise player's career, no less).
Why is it easier for you guys to believe this victim fantasy than it is to entertain the fact that X player may not have been that good, and that such an estimation doesn't mean Pop -- or anybody else -- hated him?
[QUOTE=admiralsnackbar;4549318]I don't get the people who continue building their arguments around the old saw that Pop won't play the yoots, or that the Spurs stopped holding practices to the extent that they couldn't even evaluate the caliber of their team.
If Pop was sitting on this arsenal of sleeping giants like Mahinmi and Hairston and Haislip (not to mention all the James Whites and Linton Johnsons over the years) because he was simply too squeamish to play them despite their extraordinary talents, the argument boils down to the absurdity of a professional basketball coach who would rather his team lose a season they were expected to compete or even dominate in (in the twilight of his franchise player's career, no less).
It's not about extraordinary talents, but simply talents...players that can or cannot be regular contributors to nba teams, and that should see a fair chance given to thgem considering the limited amount of money spent over them.
The comparison is between players like Bogans-Mason-Finley (all with playing experience in nba and all struggling in last season) and un unproven (but young and willing to prove himself ) Hairston.
Is between Mahinmi and...the amount of minutes given to a Mc Dyess that plays good only after the all star break and a Bonner that plays good only in R.S..
It's logical that the youg studs will make more errors than the veterans...so they need time.
What it's not logical is to take them around for more than one year (and that's the case for both Hairston and Mahinmi) if you think taht there will be no chance of nba success for them, ansd do so without give them enough time to show what they can do, preferring to them some old vet in any possible match.
The best you can say is that it's a conservative approach by the F.O. and the coach...
But wouldn't you grant it possible that you're answering your own question here? We got them for very little money. Normally there's a reason for this. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that we as a fan-base so desperately want another Robinson (see Mahinmi and even Jackie Butler) and Bowen/Ninja (see Hairston, Haislip, Linton JIII, etc) that we're projecting abilities onto them that they don't actually possess? Where are the James Whites and Marcus Williams and James Gists of the world now?
For example: do you think Pop owed it to Sean Marks or Jamaal McCaskill to give them playing time because they played on miniscule contracts? I'm almost sure you don't. But the idea that Hairston or Mahinmi could be a diamond in the rough to address the very real weaknesses in our team is so appealing that it cir vents what we actually know about these players (who, while talented, weren't necessarily talented enough).
As for Fin and Bogans playing minutes while Hairston languished, I can only assume there was a reason. Maybe you're right about Pop's conservatism towards the young, but he's played plenty of rookies while I've been a fan -- when they were good. Some were even boneheads that made mistakes all the time but were still talented (Steven Jackson and his shoe-guided crossover and 1st season Manu before people learned to catch his passes... and we can't leave Tony's first few seasons out).
So, now that Hairston is gone ans the dust has settled is there another Spur that you are going to be as passionate about, Blackjack?
Excuses, eh? You can't prove yourself in 2-second stints to fulfill the defensive role the Spurs needed last year. You just can't seem to get a grasp that fact.
Where are you getting your info? Did the report not say he asked for his release?If the Spurs had use for Malik he would still be on the roster.
Be that as it may, I'm fine with him not being on the roster if the Spurs actually have the means to improve their defense on the perimeter with Anderson and/or Temple. That's what's aggravating about the Hairston situation. Not that he's not on the team but that the Spurs didn't exhaust all their options last year to improve their D. I'm not a fan of their increased reliance on offense to overcome their lack of defense or their choosing to adapt to offensive rules in a way that leads them away from what made them who they are (were): a defensive team.
If it wasn't about people like myself you wouldn't take the time to discuss something you deem inconsequential or irrelevant. And what was reported, the Spurs cut him or he asked for his release?There isnt some deep emotional meaning behind all this. If it makes you feel better to think I dislike Malik because of your immoderate infatuation, then so be it. In reality, I enjoyed watching him and wish he would have seen more floor time. I would have liked to see him stay with the Spurs and continue developing. Unfortunately Spurs didn't think he showed enough.
I see yourand raise you a
Whomever the next player is the coaching staff fails to find out what they do or don't have because of the likes of a Keith Bogans.
Last edited by Blackjack; 07-30-2010 at 10:15 AM.
lol Italylol Italy
Who had lateral quickness in our team last season? Heck, even in the current roster? I'm not restricting the comparison to Bogans.
Our starting SF has lost any lateral mobility since his knee injuries.
Hill would be a good prospect, but his footwork need a ton of work.
Tony probably is the only guy I can think of when he's not hobbled like last season.
Malik didn't see many minutes last season, but one of the few stretches that stand out was the comeback win against the Rockets, when Kevin Martin was torching everybody that Pop put on him, including the centerpiece. It got so bad that eventually Pop had to resort to putting Malik on him, and he completely locked the guy down. I watched every single game last season, and that was the only game I remember the Spurs actually had a guy playing lockdown defense on a guy that was hot and was actually being successful.
Truth is his defense, lateral quickness, etc was never a problem on the guy. He was just too offensively impaired for a coach that has fallen in love with shooters.
TBH, I'm not in the same train as Blackjack. I like Hairston, I liked his defense, and what not, but I'm not mad he's gone. He received a better offer somewhere else, and I just wish good luck to him, and move on. I'm not advocating for him. I just don't think it's fair to dog on him now that he's gone. Something that happens very often around here.
I'm not dogging him i'm being objective. I'm talking about him now the same way i did while he was with the team.
Hairston really worked on his spot up shooting and that showed when he had his last stint in Austin. I don't think he lost out on minutes due to his offense, i think it was actually due to his defense. Bogans was an offensive black hole but continued to get minutes because he understood the rotations and knew where to be defensively off the ball.
For all the times Malik looked good on the ball, there were just as many times he looked bad off the ball. I remember seeing how well he played Lebron on the ball...he bodied up and challenged his shots. Then he'd come right back down the floor on the Cavs next possession and look lost off the ball. A guy who's been in the system for over a year should have positioning and rotations down. That's something you perfect in practice not in games.
I can't stand bogans, but i can put that aside and see where Pop was coming from.
_Jag, you're just wrong, but I forgive you.
ElNono, I continue to believe you're one of the most intelligent posters here.
Blackjack, you're clearly suffering from interweb burnout and need to step away from the keyboard. Like now. Soonly(?) or something.
Our fearless leader is on to greener pastures. Much greener.
Go Sienna Go!!!
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
I am a dreamer but when I wake,
You can't break my spirit - it's my dreams you take.
And as you move on, remember me,
Remember us and all we used to be
Lol that highlight video kept showing the same plays over and over from different views.
It's better than the Gary Neal barely jumping over a credit card lowlights tbh.
To me, the the guy that missed the most defensive rotations was far and away Richard Jefferson. He could be excused, because it was his first season in the team. But on the other hand, he played the most minutes of any Spurs throughout the 82 game regular season.
So I guess when Pop wants to, he can overlook some of that stuff (I would dare saying a whole lot in other cases such as Bonner or RMJ).
I agree with Blackjack that Malik's reduced minutes have a lot more to do with Pop's veteran pecking order than anything else.
Same thing that prevented Hill from getting any decent run in the playoffs in his first season, when Mason and Finley were horrible out there.
We're just not going to agree on this and that's fine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
