Reply With Quote
The statistics really don't support your "claim".
In 2005 (his 1 full year as a spur) he averaged 17 minutes a game and had roughly 1 turnover per game. That's not bad at all.
This. And the typical comment "the FO knows better than us". Right but they are getting embarrased year in and out with first round exits with three premier players declining on their roster investing trust in bums like bonner and rj who are proven mental midgets
The statistics really don't support your "claim".
In 2005 (his 1 full year as a spur) he averaged 17 minutes a game and had roughly 1 turnover per game. That's not bad at all.
The bad out weighs the good by a large margin.
Last edited by dbestpro; 05-12-2011 at 07:50 AM.
OKC does NOT have a better front court than Memphis - outside of the eliminated Lakers, nobody does.
Now, a lot of teams should have a better PG/wings than the Grizz (which is where OKC is winning this series). But Parker let Conley play him to a standstill and their shooters hit shots while our shooters missed them left and right - that's where we should have won the series on paper, but lost it on the court.
Presti had his Bonner-like loser in Green.
Actually younger and more athletic.
Where is he, again?
Are you implying that the Spurs would have been better off taking some of the guys picked after the players they took? Because, with a few exceptions, your provided examples don't show that at all.
With Tiago and Anderson, the grades are still incomplete. FWIW, I think both (barring injury, which may be an issue for JA) will have better careers than any of those names behind them - save for the younger Gasol.
Hill is a superior player to any of the names you listed thereafter.
While Thornton and Budding both had numerically better years than Blair, both did so on lottery teams. On a bad team with guaranteed 30+ mpg, DeJuan would be a double/double machine.
Last edited by K-State Spur; 05-12-2011 at 08:06 AM.
Nothing glaring here. Splitter given time on the court will be as effective as Marc Gasol.
The real issues of the past few years that has crashed this team is the reliance on Bonner and RJ, playing RJ at PF, running RMJ at pg, telling Blair he has an offensive game, and never giving TD some help at the center position.
Dice helped at PF, but we never got help of size or would not play the help available at the center position. TD in turn simply wore out being the only big man on the court and at his age.
Hind sight says RMJ should have never been a PG, we should have rode out RJs contract, and we should have let Bonner go and instead found a servicable backup center. The jury is still out on Blair but if he does not go back to being a rebounding force he will have played himself out of this league.
I'm not. I actually think in game 4 Nazr defended Randolph pretty good. Nazr has also had big games against the Lakers the last season or two. He can be pretty good on a decent team if used properly.
I am actually getting a little pissed off how the commentators and analysts keep going on about the trade for Perkins, the upgrade at center that they needed, a big with championship experience, but no one ever mentions Nazr being a starting center on a Championship team. Why does no one want to acknowledge that? Seriously, do they not want to talk about the Spurs at all so they won't give Nazr any props?
You overrate the memphis frontcourt. Sure they can score but they are not all that good defensively. Both Gasol & Randolph are good rebounders but neither one is particularily good at protecting the paint. Gasol will block a shot every now and then, long as he doesn't have to move much. And Randolph is terrible.
Otoh, OKC has stellar paint protection and defense with Ibaka, Perkins, Nazr, Durant, & Collison. Their combined strength in the paint is what has turned this series around, because it has really shut down the easy baskets in the paint and forced other players on the grizz to step up their scoring, which are roles they are not used to (see: Conley). So really, IMO the thunder frontcourt > grizz frontcourt.
The Spurs have to make do with what they've got, which is bad contracts to undersized forwards who play the center position next to an aging hall of famer. Can't have guys like Nazr Mohammed and Ian Mahinmi because we judge defensive frontcourt players by their offensive performance. The Spurs need shooters, or haven't you heard? Now they just need more of them. It's called "basket" ball, which means the only way to win is to outscore your opponent.
By the time Splitter is as good as Gasol, the big 3 will be long gone. My question is could the FO have picked differently to help the Spurs right away (in 2007) instead of 5 or 6 years later to have an impact.
Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers or Luc Mbah a Moute would probably been better for the Spurs than Hill.
Budinger probably would have been better for the Spurs than Blair
Landry Fields and Jordan Crawford probably would have been better for the Spurs than Anderson.
I do understand that a lot of other teams passed on the above players too, I also don't think that the FO did a stellar job with the Spurs picks.
Hill is not superior to the players I listed, but even more important he didn't fill the need the Spurs have. Darrell Arthur would have helped the Spurs more than Hill.
Thornton spent most of his time on the Hornets and did pretty well; Budinger seems to have decent games against the Spurs - what does that say? DeJuan's height will be an issue on any team he plays - could he get good point totals in the regular season? Probably, but not in the playoffs. Glen Davis struggles to get his and he's a far better player than Blair. Spurs needed a 3 and Budinger would have helped in that area.
Landry Fields should have a better career than Anderson.
Hindsight on draft picks would be an effective criticism if it were obvious that the other players were better at the time, if the players the Spurs had drafted turned out to completely suck, or if the players the Spurs acquired in the draft were the problem.
None of that is the case. The Spurs' biggest weaknesses were guys they acquired via trade and then chose to re-sign, as well as guys the Spurs let go for nothing and two rookies who look like solid NBA players who the Spurs absolutely failed to get into/get back into the rotation.
Stupid on so many levels...
because he plays a different positiion? explain yourself - he put up some pretty good numbers for a rookie.
Stupid on so many levels...
it's really not my original criticism - my original point was that the OKC frontline was a true front line vs. the midgets that the Spurs use and of better quality.
I never said the picks sucked, but I don't believe they were that great - especially for a team that relies on the draft to improve personnel.
There's lots of ways to talk around the problem: Pop.
Mason as a point guard, Blair as a starter, Finley-ism, Bonnerball, benching Splitter...
I've never considered myself part of the anti-Pop crowd, but when you step back and look at his post-2007 moves, jeez.
I'm grateful what he's done, but I don't have any faith in him going forward.
A lot to disagree with:
* I think you are over-valuing Arthur and de-valuing Hill based solely on how they played in the first round series. Overall, Arthur is an adequate bench big with a decent mid-range jump shot, but poor defender and doesn't rebound. He played very well against the Spurs, but in 5 games against OKC - he's shooting 36% and has grabbed 11 boards (TOTAL). What role would he fill on the Spurs the past 2 years? He's a lesser version of McDyess with significantly worse defense.
Hill, despite his struggles against Memphis, is one of the best bench wings in the league (although often misplayed as a backup PG). He was the best player in a series that eliminated a contending Mavericks team. , that series alone made him a more valuable pick than Arthur (who will NEVER be the best player in any series) will ever provide.
Prior to drafting Hill, our biggest weakness was another guard/wing who could attack the rim. That we are currently focusing on other issues is a testament to how well George has filled that role.
* As for the other guys you listed behind Hill - it's laughable that you would rather have Chalmers (6 ppg, 40% FG, same Assists on a team where he gets open shot after open shot after open shot), Mbah a Moute (good defender, but non-existent offensive player who kills floor spacing), CDR (7 ppg, 42%/32% on a lottery team), or Dragic (yes, Dragic had a great series against the Spurs last year, but did you just stop paying attention to him after that? when PHX needed him this year, he was flat out awful. he did rebound a bit for Houston down the stretch - but again, better numbers on a lottery team).
* Thornton - put up good numbers on a bad NOH team as a rookie and post-trade to lottery bound Sacramento this year. For the 46 games that he played for a playoff bound NOH team this year - he was 8 ppg, 3 rpg, 41% shooting. Not terrible, but nothing that makes me regret taking Blair instead.
There's a huge difference between compiling numbers on a lottery team vs. a playoff team.
* Budinger - shows flashes, but again shot 42%/32% on a lottery team this year. Nothing extremely impressive there that makes me think we should have taken him. Budinger is also a terrible defender. He may wind up to be a good player, but - as of right now - there is no evidence that drafting Blair instead was a mistake.
* Fields could wind up being a better player than JA, a lot of people would agree with that. However, his production did fall off significantly in the second half (was non-existent in the playoffs) and you do have to view the numbers that he did ac ulate through a D'Antoni inflation filter. I still would view this comparison as "incomplete."
Last edited by K-State Spur; 05-12-2011 at 09:36 AM.
For the most part the Spurs have recently done well in the draft.
Especially if you compare to any other team consistently drafting late and not having the financial resources to be significantly over the luxury cap for any length of time.
That said - I think the Spurs have made mistakes. However I am not certain things would be any better without them.
Bottom line Tim has gotten older.
OKC has a young Durant- cap space because all their young guys are still on rookie contracts. Thus they have ability to make moves.
you undersell Thonrton - he averaged 14.5 his first year and yes Sacramento is a lottery team, but he still averaged 21.3 pts p/game in his second year. That's pretty good.
I understand your thinking, but I don't believe Hill was drafted as a wing. He was drafted to be a back up point guard and Chalmers has shown a better ability to fill that position. The Spurs actually needed to get bigger when Hill was drafted and they didn't. I still believe that Arthur would have been a better fit because of that.
What kind of numbers did Jefferson post on lottery teams? I rest my case on that issue.
What role Hill was drafted to fill is debatable (although back-up PG hasn't been a huge issue for this team, as Manu fills it for large portions anyways) - but how well he fills the back-up PG role is a valid criticism.
However, have you seen Chalmers play? What evidence are you using to say that he would be a better option in that role?
Mario is essentially the exact same player as Hill (decent 3 point shooting, good defense in the right matchup, mediocre passing, too many TOs) - only Hill is significantly better at creating his own shot.
On top of that, Chalmers role in Miami is essentially the same as Hill's in San Antonio. Man the second unit PG for short stretches early in each half, then play off the ball as the playmakers run the point for crunch time (Tony/Manu for SAS, James/Wade for MIA).
If you offered Riley Hill for Chalmers straight up, Rile's response would be: "ABSOLUTELY, YES, NO TAKE BACKS!"
The difference between Presti and the Spurs front office is that Presti has had a bunch of lottery picks, include no. 2 Kevin Durrant to work with. The Spurs, on the other hand, are limited to late first round picks and second round picks since Tim Duncan (whom we were very fortunate to get).
It's only logical that eventually the Spurs would run their course and deteriorate. Yes, its tough to watch, but no tougher than watch the 80s Celtics and Lakers teams deteriorate and get run by the younger NBA compe ion. Same thing happend with the Bulls, who disbanded before things got ugly, though we have a hint of how bad things would have gone with seeing Pippen in Portland and Houston and Jordan with the Wizards.
Give Pop and RC the same tools Presti had, and they would have done equally well. As is, Spurs front office is the best in the business at putting together contenders on late first round picks and cheap signings. Good thing for us.
As a side, Phil Jackson is leaving the Lakers when it is obvious that they won't contend anymore. But he remains open to coaching a different team (I'd say Miami so he can yet again coach the best players in the league). Good thing Pop and R.C. aren't opportunists like Phil or the Spurs would soon be run by the Kevin McHales and the Isaiah Thomases of the world and everyone here would respect R.C. and Pop a lot more.
Agree with most of that. Everybody wants to focus on the failure of the first round - which was extremely disappointing, as opposed to how the front office was able to retool a team that was deemed dead after last year back into a 60 win club. That, in and of itself, is one of an accomplishment.
The fact of the matter is that, with an aging big 3, the team really isn't likely to contend without catching a lot of breaks. Manu's injury in game 1, poor shooting by the Spurs, and Memphis catching fire for stretches from jump shots (which isn't their forte) - shows how quickly a few bad breaks in the other direction could knock San Antonio out.
But if people are looking for roster moves that make us the favorites on paper and/or give us some leeway to play poorly, but still advance - those don't exist at this juncture (and really haven't since '08).
Presti > RC
The spurs should have kept Presti and shipped RC out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
