Reply With Quote
It was interesting how Pop told everyone during the regular season how the team had to improve defensively ... and at some point he just said that they will not get much better defensively. He had some hope but with that personnel it did not happen.
One thing that I I never really understood was Pop/RC (who regularly receive praise from their peers) basically choosing to go towards less defense, while the rest of the NBA contenders understood what it takes to win championships - pretty much following the formula the Spurs created.
The Pop supporters will immediately say that he had to adapt to the players we had, but that is not entirely the case. The FO chose to extend Bonner, resign RJ, sign Quinn, draft Blair, etc. The Big 3 are all at least capable defenders with TD being above avg. - not to mention we saw other contenders make moves not only in off season but at trade deadline.
Dallas gets Chandler (and even going to prev year Haywood), OKC goes for Perkins/Nazi, Memphis already had size and good defense but adds Battier, and others made moves as well.
The only size we add is Tiago - who Pop fails to integrate into system and waits till game 4 to finally use. I somewhat understand Pop not playing Splitter once he was healthy as we were winning games and chemistry is good, but I think as a leader of team/business/organization you have to constantly look for ways to make yourself better because you can bet your compe ion is.
Anyway - sorry for long post - I guess what I can't understand is how do you forget the recipe for success when you were the ones who created it?
It was interesting how Pop told everyone during the regular season how the team had to improve defensively ... and at some point he just said that they will not get much better defensively. He had some hope but with that personnel it did not happen.
It's a totally legitimate question - and one that I've posed in other threads. Pop coached and lived through the formula for the Spurs championship success. A stout defense, solid interior play and an inside-out game featuring a HOF big man. Now that that big man is in decline, the FO has failed to address the issue of size. The FO failed to provide Duncan with the kind of help needed to offset his heavy workload.
Obviously, HOF-type big men don't grow on trees, but for Pop to totally abandon the winning philosophy to go small and to a perimeter-oriented style was just short-sighted.
All of which leads me to ask, what was Pop thinking?
I think most Spurs fans realize we aren't going to be able to go get a Dwight Howard or even a Marc Gasol, but we could certainly get someone with legitimate size to play next to Duncan, and at least 1 legit big (by big at least 6'10 240 with a some athleticism) I know you have been a steady supporter of size/defense - what makes it tougher is that the other contenders FO/coaching staff understood this
Pop did not want to play this way if he had the personnel to play better D with bigger guys.
His plan worked pretty well but Duncan and Gino getting hurt put too much pressure on everyone else to produce.
Trust me, Pop would have loved to go big and play tough D, but he did not have the opportunity to get enough quality bigs.
This is the problem when you don't have any high #1 picks for the last 13 years. You have to play the hand you are dealt.
Don't buy it - he could of made it more priority to play Splitter for one - bottom line is he had to know Bonner/Blair would get abused in playoffs - not to mention having no one at the basket to be a shot altering big when TD is on bench - playoffs not reg season, teams are ore focused, take better shots, and value each possession - we know Pop plays big part in FO decision making - they chose to extend Bonner and make original trade for RJ, so if he lacked the players necessary - some fault is on Pop (and I am not a Pop hater)
I don't buy the concept of everything was ok until timmy and manu got hurt. you can't base your success in one or two guys, it will take a team to win the championship aside from injuries that will force you to be out for the reminder of the playoffs.
The spurs have realistically suffered from lack of big help since 2005 and they haven't addressed it. yes, as far as 2005 - 2007 was won against a poor Cavs team with only one superstar and TP playing at a high level.
But seriously, we are in 2011 and the last good big the Spurs had was Nazr???
What a way to waste Duncan's best years.
It's actually long overdue. The Fakers underwent their massive size upgrade, courtesy of the Pau Gasol trade, back in 2008. A trade that literally changed the balance of power in the West. That was 3 years ago. Over that period of time, several of the western conference contenders got the message and responded accordingly.
The Thunder traded a promising, young PF Jeff Green, to acquire Kendrick Perkins, to go along with the insertion of Serge Ibaka in the starting lineup. The Mavs acquired Brendon Haywood one year, and acquired Tyson Chandler the next. That's an instant size upgrade. The Grizzlies secured long-term extensions to both Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph. They only led the NBA in points-in-the-paint and just by coincidence, just exposed and ousted our Spurs in a first-round upset.
In the meantime, what have the Spurs done? Initially, Pop uncharacteristically ed and moaned publically about the unfairness of the Gasol trade. Instead of ing about it, perhaps he should've paid more attention toward upgrading the size of his own roster. He allowed a 6'11" big (Mahinmi) to walk, resigns a one-dimensional stretch-4 (Bonner), signs a former first round pick, a 6'11" Brazilian center (Splitter), which he kept chained to the bench most of the season. All the while, he simultaneously changed his offensive philosophy from to a perimeter-oriented style, which was predicated on small-ball lineups and the 3-ball as the primary offensive option. What's wrong with this picture?
Meanwhile, his future HOF big man (Duncan), just turned 35 and is STILL the best big man on the roster, and still charged with manning both ends of the floor with little help. What's wrong with this picture?
Even the Blazers, who already sport Marcus Camby and LaMarcus Aldridige, along their frontlien, have recognized their size deficienc. In light of them having to ship out former starting center, Joel Pyrzbilla, in the Gerald Wallace trade. they have firmly stated their intentions to aggressively seek to upgrade their size over the offseason.
Every western conference contender has seemingly gotten the message - except the Spurs. On the contrary, perhaps Pop is finally getting it. In his end-of-regular season press conference, Pop made a vague reference to the Grizzlies exploiting their size advantage. Huh? Are you kidding me? Now he's getting the message? The problem is he's about 3 years too late. 3 precious years off Duncan's career have evaporated, while the coach sat idle and did nothing.
While it's virtually impossible any team to equally match the Fakers size. However in order to give your team the best chance to overthrow the champs, you cannot contend with an undersized, aged frontline - which is precisely what the Spurs have rolled out the past couple of years. After all, the Fakers only have 3 straight NBA Finals appearances and 2 consecutive les to show for their troubles. It seems to me that, THIS is the team you need to match up against. Going small, doesn't cut it.
If Pop played the hand he was dealt, Splitter wouldn't have been glued to the bench all season.
lolMahinmi
What asset do the Spurs have (or have they had) that even closely resembles a 25 year old lottery pick who averaged 15 ppg and 6 rpg?
What 18 ppg scorer have the Spurs had to package in a deal to bring back guys like Haywood and Caron Butler, as Dallas did with Josh Howard? What expiring contracts like Erick Dampier's massive deal have the Spurs had to dangle in front of teams to get a guy like Tyson Chandler?
After having given up Pau Gasol to get Marc and having taken on Randolph as a problem child. And unless something has changed in the last hour, Gasol's deal expires after this season.
The Spurs bid on Pryzbilla in the summer of 2006, offering the biggest deal they possibly could to him, but he took more money to stay in Portland. And I'd be interested to know what asset they have that can remotely equate to Gerald Wallace to have gone after him again.
The Spurs didn't have capspace to take on Camby's massive deal when Denver sent him away by firesale at a time when it was looking to shed contracts and didn't want to take on players. The Spurs still took a run at Camby in 2009 when he was with the Clippers, only to come up short at the deadline (and, by the way, Spurs fans freaked out (at the time) that the FO would even think of dealing off George Hill for Camby . . . .).
My point is that you have to have something to get something and short of the Big 3, the Spurs haven't had much of anything to entice teams to deal with them -- not players, not picks, not space, not prospects. Those problems, of course, tend to be the byproducts of long-term success. Even with that, it's simply wrong to say that the Spurs have wholly ignored the problem, given their established efforts to get Pryzbilla and Camby (among others). There's a difference between trying and coming up short and not trying at all.
I totally get your point. You're not going to get every player you go after. However sometimes making the incorrect decisions can just can be even more disastrous as swinging and missing on a player target.
Two summers ago, the Spurs FO made a conscious decision to go over the cap two summers ago in a bold move in an effort to try and secure le #5. Bold moves were made that netted both RJ and later Dice. Those were aggressive moves that were and should've been applauded. No one can or should quibble with that. However, after one year of seeing how bad of a fit RJ was and after 3 years of watching Bonner suck, the inexplicable decision was last summer made to re-up both. There was no mystery there. That was just idiotic.
My point there is that was a huge amount of salary tied up in two non-performing players. Money that perhaps could've been better spent on a player or two that would've help achieve the objective we're discussing.
The hallmark of any good GM is the ability to make smart decisions and select personnel that fits the organizational philosophy. Everybody makes mistakes. When those occur, it's important to recognize and correct. Choosing to ignore the mistake only compounds the isse.
In the end, the FO is judged on whether or not they they've fielded a team that has a realistic chance on winning a le. That is barometer of success during the Tim Duncan era.
after all that has been said and done - unfortunately everything is turning to the point where in order to get massive help with the bigs the spurs will have to part ways with one of the big 3s, because frankly that's the only thing they have that has real value. I would say it's probably Parker as both Duncan and Manu make more money for the franchise overall and bring the most fans around.
If TP is traded then I can see something serious happening next year and some of these trade options that have been thrown around might actually happen. Other than that, the only other viable option is to throw some of the other precious assets the Spurs might have, the likes of Splitter, Neal, Hill or Blair which I think it could be a mistake.
Bottom line is and I reiterate, the Spurs haven't dealt properly with this issue since 2005, 6 years ago, when Duncan was 29.
You will never get over Mahmni will you.? Haywood's has a huge contract and he doesn't even start. How could of the Spurs obtained Chandler, Perkins? Randolph was a selfish thug who nobody wanted, but Memphis. It seems after several seasons, that Randolph has finally seen the light. And speaking of OKC beefing up their frontline, how did it look the other night against Memphis? Have you considered, given the Spur's ownership's buget, and the Spur's picking in the low 1st and 2nd rounds for over a decade, how the Spurs can obtain a starting caliber 4/5? What possible star caliber player really wants to come to San Antonio?
No were not going to shut up about Mahinmi. Here's why-
Mahinmi outplayed Brenda several times this season, and his stats on a per minute basis were virtually identical (actually Mahinmi shot 70%+ at the FT line compared to Brenda's 30%.
If you ask me, the only reason Carlsile is playing Brenda now is because he realizes he's going to be with the team a LONG time (5 more years of bloated Jefferson type $$). I guarantee you if he could dump Brenda's salary & contract right now and move Ian into that spot he would do it in a heartbeat.
Ian is making 9X less than Brenda and put up similar numbers to Brenda.
You're mising the point, as usual. I'm not suggesting the Spurs had a chance at any of these players. Those are all merely just examples of the how the other contenders responded to the Western Conference "arms" race, that was spurred on by the Gasol trade.
Trades and free agency are not the only ways to upgrade roster size.
And for the record, given the choice of re-upping Bonner to a 4-yr extension, just for the pleasure of watching him get routinely abused on the defensive, while choking away wide-open 3's on the offensive end, I'd take my chances on Mahinmi every time. IMO it would make much more sense throwing him in as a backup big to combat a very physical frontline, like Memphis, than a one-dimensional 3-pt shooter, and historcal playoff choker.
Ian may still be an unknown, but we already know what Bonner is and more importanly what he isn't.
lol Ian
lol centers playing center.
Ian actually playing center....
lol Bonner's oil boy
Spurs didn't have to go out and get any one. They already had Ian and Splitter. The fact that they re-signed Bonner and had Splitter rotting on the bench emphasized the mis-calculation (insanity, lunacy, whatever you want to call it) of Pop giving up on size. A line-up of Duncan, Splitter, Dice and Ian would have looked a damn sight better against MEM than TD, Dice, Bonner and Blair.
And if DAL should happen to beat LA, there'll be even more what-ifs. Pop has just totally messed up with all the big men he's drafted (in recent years) - Scola, Ian and Splitter - virtually handing 2 of them to division rivals.
Last edited by rmt; 05-03-2011 at 02:49 PM.
lol comparing Ian to Brenda. They both are terrible.
It's funny. You can't really find any posts of mine actively lobbying for Bonner to play the amount he played. Most of the time I was making fun of insane haters like you who couldn't get their facts straight or just outright lied in their "objective takes."
You're a joke.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
