Is Pop's system too structured?

[DMC]

That's true, but heavy reliance on the 3-ball IS an issue. When that shot isn't falling, and you're on the road, it's better to work inside for easier shots. Have players simply forgotten the in-between game? There is no harm in putting the ball on the floor and settling for an 18 ft shot or driving it to the cup. Those shots result in a better chance of getting free points at the charity stripe. The fact that the Spurs offense is based primarily on the 3-ball is very, very disconcerting.

Every team relies on their outside shooting. I think there's a stigma attached to a good 3pt shooting team because of the Suns. The fact is that the Suns would probably have a ring if the Spurs don't beat them that year they got penalized for the Horry hip check on Nash, and the Suns had NO defense.

Being a great 3pt shooting team isn't a weakness. Allowing the other team to score 110pts is a weakness. It's all at the defensive end. We usually score enough points to win if we played any defense at all.

[TD 21]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

[DMC]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

I didn't say the Spurs would have lost if not for the hipcheck. I said if the Suns would have won that year... I was using that hip check as a reference. Read again.

[SenorSpur]

People think playing good defense is about effort; it's not. It's about having the personnel to play good defense, combined with effort, intelligence and having a good scheme.

The Spurs flat out don't have the personnel to play very good defense. Good is about as good as they're capable of, particularly when you consider the rotation/lineups they use. And as much as Pop stresses the importance of defense, it's clearly lip service. Look no further than how they've structured the team and the rotation/lineup utilized. It's not conducive to playing top five defense.

And no, the Suns probably would not have a ring right now if not for the Horry hip check. Big deal if they had stole home court? The Spurs had proven time and again that they had no trouble beating the Suns on the road. Also, people conveniently forget, the Spurs controlled game 4 before blowing it late, just like they had controlled the majority of the series up to that point. I believe they had double digit leads in three of the first four games, if I recall correctly. They were clearly the better team.

That's the whole point right there - and an excellent one. A point that has not been discussed very much. If the coach is serious about improving the team defense, then acquiring better defensive players is the way to go.

You can't expect to maintain there normal level with of defensive excellence when you're bringing in inferior defensive players. With the absence of Bowen and the decline of Duncan's skills, and no other players of note to help mitigate their contributions on that end, it's no coincidence that the Spurs overall defensive level has declined.

[Dex]

That's the whole point right there - and an excellent one. A point that has not been discussed very much. If the coach is serious about improving the team defense, then acquiring better defensive players is the way to go.

You can't expect to maintain there normal level with of defensive excellence when you're bringing in inferior defensive players. With the absence of Bowen and the decline of Duncan's skills, and no other players of note to help mitigate their contributions on that end, it's no coincidence that the Spurs overall defensive level has declined.

I think this is where I've pretty much settled on the topic. Pop has always had the blueprint to make it work; he just doesn't have the parts to build it anymore.

For a guy with as much influence as he has on the organization, he has to hold part of the blame for that. Some of it may have come down to cir stance (Scola Thread!), but other decisions have been downright questionable (small ball, riding Finley into the sunset, overplaying Bonner, underplaying Splitter/Ratliff/Mahinmi). Also as noted, the focus in drafting and free agency no longer seems to be in length and defense; it's in shooting and quickness.

How is defense not expected to suffer? You can't teach cats to be dogs.

Pop seems to be trying to adapt to the "changing of the game", but he is losing his roots in doing so.

[Rummpd]

Lets go Spurs!

[Rummpd]

hey this is probably part of the future Spurs LOL if we only had a decent back up PG as Hill more like a shooting guard.

[ChuckD]

Far be it my place to question the overall theory of a Hall of Fame coach, but I feel like this is a topic for discussion.

It's pretty common knowledge around here that the Spurs' sets, both offensively and defensively, are some of the most sophisticated out there. Even after an attempt to "simplify" things, they still have one of the thickest play books in the league.

Due to this, we've all become accustomed to the "first year" handicap. Players who are brought into the Spurs usually take at least a season before they start becoming comfortable with things. Jeff and Dice are the two most recent examples.

Furthermore, this is also exemplified when one of the pillars of the system goes down, like in these past three games without Tim. Suddenly, Pop doesn't just have to worry about replacing a player on the floor; he has to replace that role, or adjust the way the entire team plays.

It seems like when other teams lose a player, it doesn't create a complete upheaval in the system and the rotations. They just plug another player in and ride his talents (and if they are playing the Spurs, it is usually to great success).

The Spurs don't seem to have the same luxury; if one of their key guys goes down, it almost forces the whole team to play different. If one player isn't on the same page, the other four on floor suffer (particularly on defense). I know it's hard to replace special qualities like Parker's speed or Tim's defense, but I feel like the system is so dependent upon these advantages that the team is almost at a disadvantage without them.

I hate to question a system that basically worked for two championships (05 and 07), although I'd argue that the system worked a lot better with Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry than it ever will Richard Jefferson and Matt Bonner.

So, is Pop's system too structured, or are the players just not properly executing it?

Top to bottom, we can't compete talent-wise with the better teams in the league with our market/financial parameters. Without the system, we're a bottom half of the draw playoff team. It's probably good for a solid 7-8 wins a season.

[Dex]

Spurs are rolling against Portland, up 8. Instead of sticking with the hot hands, Pop goes back to his starters (deciding it's a swell time for Splitter to see the fourth quarter and, of course, the Floorspreader) and the Spurs go cold for 7 minutes in the 4th and give up 13 straight.

I understand sticking with your starters when they are Tim, Tony, and Manu...but when we're playing the YMCA roster and you've finally caught some fire?

Just sayin'.

[DMC]

YMCA roster? LOL