Spurs O by the Daily Dime at that network

[FromWayDowntown]

There's no question Bruce was one dimensional on the offensive end. That's not necessarily a liability when he more than made up for it on the other end.

Hence the reference to Bruce as an offensive liability.

[FromWayDowntown]

The article's attempt to draw comparisons to yesteryears Spurs through a guy like Bowen fails miserably though.

I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and compe ive on the other.

[Mel_13]

I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and compe ive on the other.

You really should post more frequently.

[ElNono]

Hence the reference to Bruce as an offensive liability.

I disagree. I think he was offensively one-dimensional. Which is different from being a liability. His 3 point shooting percentage was more than respectable, and the coach made sure that the bulk of his contributions on offense were kept on that realm (successfully so for the most part, I might add).

I actually think it's exactly apt. And, despite the knee jerk willingness to assume some sort of diminution of Bruce Bowen's importance to old Spurs teams and their philosophy, I think the point about the difference is well-made through Bowen specifically.

The point is pretty simple: if you have a once-in-a-generation defender like Bowen, you can build a team around defense, take on the limitations that imposes offensively and still win games. But since 2008, the Spurs have been a case-in-point of the converse of that -- if you don't have a guy like Bruce Bowen, it's relatively suicidal to think that you're going to advance deep into the playoffs with a team that is both offensive challenged AND defensively porous. At some point, if you can't defend at an elite level -- and the Spurs haven't done that for several years now -- you'd better figure out a way to score points if you want be anything other than a 50-win team that is First Round fodder. Teams don't win in this league by being pretty good at either end. To win, you'd better be excellent or elite on one end and compe ive on the other.

And I agree with this. It's hard to talk about the Bowen-as-a-Spur era without talking defense.

But if you want to cir scribe it to the offense alone, even this high scoring Spurs have one dimensional players given a good chunk of playing time. I think the biggest difference from an offensive standpoint is that we're much more versatile than back then (except maybe in 2003). I think the quality of relatively new guys like Hill, and improved good players like RJ and Dice is really the difference maker.

[FromWayDowntown]

But if you want to cir scribe it to the offense alone, even this high scoring Spurs have one dimensional players given a good chunk of playing time. I think the biggest difference from an offensive standpoint is that we're much more versatile than back then (except maybe in 2003). I think the quality of relatively new guys like Hill, and improved good players like RJ and Dice is really the difference maker.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current Spurs are somehow more multi-dimensional than the guys who used to play here. I think the argument goes that the players who are here now are more offensively-inclined than their predecessors (in whatever way you choose to cast that -- more offensively versatile, more offensively consistent). They're one-dimensional, but their singular dimension is wholly on the offensive end of the floor.

And that's exactly the point -- in years gone by, Pop would have chosen a team full of guys who were more likely to defend ferociously (or to be more balanced from end-to-end) than a team comprised of a lot of guys whose sole dimension is offense. I personally think that Pop has realized that if you don't have elite defenders (like Bowen and a younger Duncan) you can't hope to be an elite defensive team and that if you aren't an elite defensive team, you'd better figure out a way to put the ball in the basket. And if you're going to do that, you'd better have some role players who are offensively inclined.

Again, I think Bruce Bowen is probably the perfect example of the difference between the 2002-2007 Spurs and the current Spurs. With a Bowen-type defender, the Spurs wouldn't be scoring 106 ppg; they'd be trying to lock people down still and more satisfied to grind things out offensively. Without that guy -- and they've sought him unsuccessfully for several years now -- the modus operandi has to be to score and hope to get enough stops to win games against good teams.

[ElNono]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current Spurs are somehow more multi-dimensional than the guys who used to play here. I think the argument goes that the players who are here now are more offensively-inclined than their predecessors (in whatever way you choose to cast that -- more offensively versatile, more offensively consistent). They're one-dimensional, but their singular dimension is wholly on the offensive end of the floor.

And that's exactly the point -- in years gone by, Pop would have chosen a team full of guys who were more likely to defend ferociously (or to be more balanced from end-to-end) than a team comprised of a lot of guys whose sole dimension is offense. I personally think that Pop has realized that if you don't have elite defenders (like Bowen and a younger Duncan) you can't hope to be an elite defensive team and that if you aren't an elite defensive team, you'd better figure out a way to put the ball in the basket. And if you're going to do that, you'd better have some role players who are offensively inclined.

Again, I think Bruce Bowen is probably the perfect example of the difference between the 2002-2007 Spurs and the current Spurs. With a Bowen-type defender, the Spurs wouldn't be scoring 106 ppg; they'd be trying to lock people down still and more satisfied to grind things out offensively. Without that guy -- and they've sought him unsuccessfully for several years now -- the modus operandi has to be to score and hope to get enough stops to win games against good teams.

No doubt. Completely agree. I don't think the article goes to explain it like this, and I think this is where it particularly falters.

The article reads: (The Spurs have been) "gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring".

I think the article fails to point out that the reason we've moved away from 'offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen' is that we've been unable to replace the 'defensive prowess' that players like Bowen brought to the table (and not for lack of trying to find a suitable replacement, as you stated).

It's not that the FO had much of a choice. We simply cannot keep up the defensive level, so we had to go out there looking for instant offense and more versatility.

In a nuts , I share your view as to why we got here offensively. I think you really can't explain properly unless you include the dip on the defensive talent (and by extension defensive performance).

[ElNono]

I also disagree with the schtick that the Spurs were boring. Maybe for the casual observer they were. But I enjoy watching a good defensive dogfight as much as a offensive feast.

[ChumpDumper]

spurfans argue about funny things.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the article fails to point out that the reason we've moved away from 'offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen' is that we've been unable to replace the 'defensive prowess' that players like Bowen brought to the table (and not for lack of trying to find a suitable replacement, as you stated).

I don't think there's an intention to explain the why of it in Varner's note. It's simply an acknowledgment that the transition has happened with Bowen as an example of the change.

[barbacoataco]

Good thread. Bowen wasn't a liability in the Spurs system of the time. But it is true that RJ and Hill are much more of an offensive force. I love Bowen but times change and the Spurs are responding to the new rules of the NBA which make it hard to play defense.

[pad300]

I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.

Actually, he wasn't. You could reliably park him in the corner and expect to get 38%+ on 3's if they didn't stick to him. Leaving him open all the time would kill you. An offensive liability is a guy you can reliably cheat off of. Examples: Reggie Evans (rebounder, but can't score), Keith Bogans (do I need to explain?), Nick Van Excel (when he was with the Spurs).

[tav1]

Sometimes careful qualifications are missed on a 300 word assignment. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[ElNono]

On a separate note, that touches tangentially on the unidimensional players and offensive liabilities, I've been pretty disappointed with Blair this season. He has picked it up a bit on the last couple of games, but all the talk about developing an outside game during the offseason really didn't amount to anything more than that, talk. He's also the guy that looks the least improved for 'year two' under the system, IMO.

[jjktkk]

Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.

Obvously, because of your avaitor pic. you got alittle defensive about Varner's comment about Bruce. Bruce just got old. It happens. True Spurs fans will always remember how important Bruce was for our champioship teams.

[jjktkk]

I also disagree with the schtick that the Spurs were boring. Maybe for the casual observer they were. But I enjoy watching a good defensive dogfight as much as a offensive feast.

+1! I absolutely loved watching the Spurs shut down a team defensively.

[TimmehC]

Sometimes careful qualifications are missed on a 300 word assignment. Don't sweat the small staff.

I think most people understood that you weren't dissing Bruce, just giving an example of the Spurs new direction.