Reply With Quote
For the record, I also don't see Temple being cut as the most likely outcome.
i feel jerrells is gone no way he sticks imo- out of neal,anderson,gee and temple two better pan out or spurs are in trouble
For the record, I also don't see Temple being cut as the most likely outcome.
I think Anderson is the most likely to. I have his cellar at Malik Hairston and his ceiling as very solid player, perhaps very good starter.
I really think Temple is a keeper and I hope Neal and Anderson make it as well. Jerrels, Gee I think will be gonners.
Sounds like he is a diamond in the rough for you guys. I liked him when he was with the Rox, and wanted to keep him....
As a rookie he has a nice set of skills to build upon and has good athleticism and size.
I don't know what his ceiling is, but if it is only as the 12th man, it is nice to have someone in that spot that can actually play in the NBA.
DD
I don't know why the concept of a three guard rotation is so difficult to grasp for so many. This notion that if Hill starts at SG, that he also can't backup at PG, is foolish. Against quality opposition and in the playoffs, that's probably exactly what is going to happen. Against lesser opposition, obviously more players will play, which would open up minutes in the back court for either Neal or Temple. If Hayes or someone of that ilk is signed, then Anderson too. If they stand pat, then Anderson will likely play almost exclusively at SF.
It's true that Hill is more of an SG than a PG, but that's irrelevant on this team. With a healthy Parker, all the Spurs will need is about 15 mpg out of their backup PG. With a guy like Ginobili, you don't need a pure PG next to him, since he's essentially a de facto PG. What you want with a guy like that is a guy who can relieve him some of the ball handling/play making responsibilities, as well as a guy who's a good spot up shooter and a versatile defender. Hill is a perfect fit.
And let's face it, Temple is no more a PG than Hill. They're both SG's masquerading as PG's, but that's fine, because the Spurs already have two primary ball handlers. So the other guards don't have to be pure points.
Neal can't play SF, but Anderson can and will. The only question is, do they sign a true SF, or stand pat and fill the position by committee? That would be stupid because if Jefferson get's injured, then a combination of Anderson, Ginobili, Temple and Gee would be forced to play SF, which is ridiculous.
As much as most of us expect Anderson to contribute in year one, there's never a guarantee with a rookie. That's why it makes sense to have insurance in the form of a veteran such as Hayes. He shouldn't automatically be be given playing time over the young players though.
When Neal was signed, word was he could take Mason's minutes. Temple, Pop's called his new favorite player. So maybe they don't want a veteran like Hayes, who'd probably expect to play ahead of guys like that automatically, because they don't want to bury these two and to a lesser degree, Gee and want to have minutes available for one of these guys to play at least semi consistently.
Temple can't play SF unless he hit the weight room big time this summer he is jut to skinny to guard the big SF's in the leauge. But you are right we need another SF and I would sign Walter Hermman for whart we have left in the kity.
The thing I like Temple is that when he plays you just know he is going to do OK. He is a basektball player vs an athletic player with potential and we all know that potential has gotten alot of coaches fired over the years.
he'll gain wait if he keeps eating what tyrus thomas is serving in Charlotte.
http://www.twitvid.com/B4DJ1
We always pull for the rookies who show a flash of potential. Darius Washington comes to mind as an example. I liked what I saw out of Temple last year, and I hope he can step up and earn some solid minutes this year. I think he will, but we'll see in a few weeks.
The thing I really like about him is that he could complement Hill so well, because of his height. Hill could play his natural 2 guard position on the offensive end, and Temple's height could let him defend some bigger guys on the defensive end. I know Hill is long, but there's no subs ute for honest inches in height. Hill is still going to pick up assists from slashing to the paint and dishing, but if Temple can be a legit backup PG, I think it would be a huge luxury to have him in there. An oversized 1 to complement an undersized 2.
I sort of think that if he makes the final cut, it will be because he is better at running the point than Hill. I'm not so sure they would keep him as a pure 2 guard, given the rest of this roster.
Spurs won't cut him, he's like a good Marcus Williams
Agree 100%
He is not that great a Pg, but he is better than Hill in handling the ball.
If Garrett Temple can do the same things that Jacques Vaugn did for this team on offense (just protect the ball, keep turnovers to a minimum, shoot effeciently, and initiate offensive sets, and keep fg attempts down) he will be a very valuable player to this organization. Because at his size, he is big enough to defend opposing teams 2guards while running the point position. Which in turn allows Parker and Hill to slide to the 2 guard and frees them up offensively to look for their own shots and not have to distribute the ball and still defend opposing point guards...Alot like how Ginobili assumes the role of the facilitator on offense when he enters the game.
The thing that stands out for me about Temple is that he played with confidence, the games where he was the starter late in the season he showed great poise and maturity for a guy whose future hinged on performing big, he didn't overplay, he wasn't nervous to the point where it showed. This is a huge trait in my view, he has the talent, but so do a lot of players in the NBA, it's how you use that talent, and how you handle the pressure when the ball is in your hands, this kid really impressed me with his ability to play within the system and himself. I personally think this guy is a steal and will pay off big for the Spurs.
You seem to be part of "many" so let's review the reality of the Spurs backcourt situation, which is either:
- Parker (PG) + Hill (SG)
- Parker (PG) + Manu (SG)
- Manu (PG) + Hill (SG)
In those 3 scenarios Hill is never the PG, either starting or back-up. I agree with you that Hill can relieve some other guy of ballhandling duties for a short period of time, which is not at all the same as being a legit backup PG. Manu is the only player the Spurs have who can really play SG and PG at a top level.
Putting Hill as a backup PG always makes me laugh, especially when it's coupled with the good old "we can trade Parker now that we have another legit PG in Hill". He is not. Hill is Manu's replacement. Parker's replacement hasn't surfaced yet, which is why Parker will be signed to an extension around April.
It's pretty clear that Parker's replacement is not Jerrells. The jury is still out on Temple.
...well...
I don't believe he is gay...and I wouldn't care if he was...
is that what you were asking?
I agreed with everything you said until the "Hill is Manu's replacement" that I have to say made me laugh. People get sold to fast on stuff just look at all the posts that were made about Ian, Pop, and now Hairston.
Hill is a decent player but he is a tweener and those are a dime a dozen. The funny thing is that the most sucessful tweeners are players who bring instant offense which is not Hill game. To be honest I put Hill just above Bonner in that Hill is a better defender then Bonner.
The guy who should be backing up Manu is Anderson but that all depends what happens at the SF postion.
The best thing about Temple is that he has a pro at ude. He looks like he belongs out there. He is smart and fearless and he has a good set of skills that translate to the pro level. He needs more time to develop, but I think he could a very good NBA player.
If I'm the one talking about and explaining the concept, then how could I be one of those "many" who seemingly aren't grasping it?
When he plays with Parker, Ginobili is never the PG. When he plays with Hill, they share the responsibilities offensively, but defensively, Hill is more often than not the PG. What Ginobili is, is a de facto PG. Just like James, Wade, Bryant, Pierce, Roy, Johnson, etc. Obviously, you lack the cranial capacity to distinguish between the two.
Using the Lakers as an example, is Fisher not the PG just because he plays the role of spot up shooter in their offense?
It shouldn't make you laugh, considering that's what he is: the backup PG. I definitely agree that his presence doesn't make Parker expendable though.
Wrong again. Hill is Ginobili's AND Parker's replacement. When you have three guards of this caliber, you don't get caught up in whether a guy is a "true PG", because they can all handle the ball. Look at the Hawks. Last season, they used Johnson, Bibby and Crawford as their back court rotation. Did they care that Crawford was more of an SG than a PG and resort to playing Teague just because he's technically more of a PG? No. They rotated three guards generally because those were three of their best players and they needed them to play as much as possible. The same logic applies to the Spurs.
If the Spurs were to use Temple as the backup PG, then that only further cuts into the minutes of their three top guards and unlike the Hawks, who have a guard in Johnson, who's capable of playing SF, the Spurs don't really have that amongst their three. Ginobili plays there some when the matchups allow for it, but he's really strictly a guard.
Who else do you propose we play at the 3 when RJ sits? Bonner?
So the idea Hill being Manu's replacement is ludicrous (despite Hill showing numerous times that he could play well and had room for improvement), but saying that an unproven rookie is Manu's backup makes sense? uh?
Or maybe you read Temple when I said Hill.
Defensively? I guess my cranial capacity is indeed definitely too small to understand that one.
There can only be one PG at the same time on the floor, since (as far as I know) there's only one ball: Parker is the main PG, and Ginobili is a de facto PG (with the second unit), which leaves Hill not being a PG at all. Thanks for agreeing with me.What Ginobili is, is a de facto PG.
i agree with most of this but got lost at the end, do you want parker ginobili and hill out there at the same time? or are you saying having temple cut into other players time is destructive?
No, there can be two playing simultaneously, but technically, only one person can be playing a position at each time.
I'll give you another example: The brief moments that the Cavs paired O'Neal with Ilgauskas last season, were they not still both centers just because they happened to be in the game at once?
Hill is more of the point guard with the second unit than Ginobili. Basically, because they share the responsibilities offensively, but Hill guards the position more often than not defensively, he's designated as the point guard. The line is definitely blurred some though, it's not like Nash and Richardson.
At times, when the matchups allow for it.
Generally speaking, yes. This team, because Pop is focused on keeping the minutes down of the key veterans, spreads the minutes around more than any other in the league. So against inferior opposition or during a hectic stretch in the schedule, I fully expect to see an expanded rotation. But when this team plays against elite or near elite teams and eventually, when they set a playoff rotation, I full expect to see a three guard rotation.
??? Why would the Spurs cut any of them? We have an open roster spot, and don't need salary relief for tax purposes. We're under.
BTW, Anderson and Neal are guaranteed for the season, and won't be cut under any cir stances.
Temple showed some real promise and poise when he stepped in for that stretch last season. The Spurs were in the dog days of their season and needed every win to keep pace with the wild West, and it looked like Parker going down was going to be a harbinger of doom. Instead, GT came in and, though he didn't really do anything spectacular, he ran the offense and helped keep the team steady when both Hill and Ginobili couldn't be on the floor. Without Garrett Temple, it's entirely possible the Spurs face the Lakers in the first round.
I think the most important thing he did is the one thing other D-League hopefuls, despite whatever other tools they had to provide, couldn't do: he shot the ball well. Especially from three. Unfortunately, thirteen games is a small sample size, but if he can continue to shoot .40 on his threes, then he should definitely find a place on this team.
Last edited by Dex; 08-22-2010 at 05:04 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
