I think Manu makes any backcourt work, since he would be the de-facto backup PG. The concern is the fact that Manu will have his minutes limited, and most likely will play SG minutes too, reducing his availability in the backup PG role. There's also the fact that Tony had his own share of injuries and we have no serviceable backup PG. Even though it is a long season, the West is tough enough as it is to be undermanned.
This has been something the Spurs have been lacking for the past couple of seasons (since Vaughn was gone pretty much). I guess Hill was supposed to fill the role, but he never really developed into a reliable player at that position. I also don't think that the Spurs need 'a quality backup PG' (also don't buy they couldn't acquire one via trade if they really needed one), but more of a seasoned vet PG who can be insurance when those TP and Manu legs get long in the tooth during the season or some injury has them temporarily sidelined.
again, if it's about rotation and possible back court combinations, most questions are already answered.
we have Tony, Manu, Neal and Anderson.
Tony+Manu works - 18 MPG
Tony+Neal works - 6 MPG
Tony+Anderson: ? should work - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal works - 6 MPG
Manu+Anderson: ? could work - 4 MPG
Neal+Anderson: ? likely not
small line up
Tony+Neal+Anderson - 4 MPG
Manu+Neal+Anderson - 2 MPG
Some of you guys are looking way too far into this. Neal is ice cold and you can see that he has a high BBIQ. In addition to him playing point overseas and before his pro career, he has the drive to get it done. I just want him on the floor. What ever way that happens is fine with me. He was absolutely my favorite player last season. What an incredible pickup for us.
The only lineup where you have Neal as a PG is '? likely not'.
If your point is that Manu should be the backup PG, then that's ok.
That's not what the OP is talking about though.
Mine too. He still has a lot to learn at this level, but I thought he always put forth the effort.
That half-time buzzer beater against LA exemplifies his 'never give up' mentality.
Yeah, the guy is a hard nosed warrior. I love his confidence and sweet jump shot.
That half-time buzzer beater against LA exemplifies his 'never give up' mentality.
No, he wouldn't. Manu and Neal will share the PG duties like Manu and Hill did when they were paired.
I think that's the best case scenario for Neal in terms of being at the point.
I'm not worried about him defensively. During the time he comes in, the best PGs will be off the floor for a couple minutes. I'd rather for him to be utilized at his best: coming off screens for the open shot and providing a scoring, punch, not executing plays.
I personally don't think Hill ever did much PG duties outside of bringing the ball up when he was paired with Manu. And when he did took the role, he was pretty awful at it. Just my opinion.
That pretty much covers it.
Good to see the stubborn SOB learned from the Roger Mason Jr. fiasco.
it's a bad coaching decision if neal ever finds himself bringing up the ball as PG. pop shouldn't put players out of their element. he may not have been entirely responsible for mason's demise but he contributed to it by putting mason in a position to fail miserably. to a smaller degree he did it with hill by trying to jam the position of back up pg down his throat (and hill could actually play some pg) and of course putting small forwards at the PF position like finley.
people are overrating neal. his ball handling and passing are average for a SG and would be mediocre as PG. he should stick to his role as a back up SG. and it's not like neal is a young player who can still learn like pop's experiment with hill. at least hill may have developed into a good PG but neal isn't going to be developing anything entering his late 20s.
What does playing point guars means?
There are only 2 playmakers: Parker and Ginobili. Other players can run the ball, start a team offense or play one-one..
Last year, when the Spurs didn't have manu or tony, i found Neal a better playmaker than George Hill. He run better the pick and roll and also, because he's a great 3p shooter and mid-range shooter he can create a shot for himself easily..
With the great PG there're in the league, it's really hard to defend them one-one, so it's kind of a team defense..Who is fast and strong enough to defend Westbrook and Rose??
I love how all those that are completely sold on this bring up the fact that Neal played the point in college and in Europe, as if it's the same as playing it in the NBA. Like the athletes and speed/quickness he'll up against are the same.
Offensively, as I've said, I think they'll be more than fine with him playing the point, because he'll have an elite play maker next to him, in Ginobili, so they can share the duties.
Defensively, I don't need to wait and watch, it's obvious he's going to struggle. This idea that "he'll only play against backups" ignores this: Parker averaged 32.4 mpg last season. With Hill traded, maybe he get's a slight bump next season, but he's never averaged above 34.4. mpg in a season. So we're looking at probably close to 15 mpg at the point for Neal. Save for Nash, every elite PG plays considerably more than that and even a number of the ones below them do, so you can be sure that Neal will spend a decent amount of time guarding starters. Also, there's plenty of explosive backups. Leonard may be an option, but it's doubtful he could do even an adequate job on the ones with elite explosiveness and speed/quickness.
I know that with the rules being what they are, no one can really defend quick PG's one on one. But if it's obvious that a team has only one guy with even a chance at doing an adequate job defending them (and that one guy plays limited minutes and carries a heavy load offensively), they're going to exploit it. Just like this team was exploited in the post and at the rim.
Good for Gary he earned it.
More than that, the last time I checked Neal was on the second string at SG and was clearly our worst perimeter defender. He was getting driven on by bench shooting guards and was a foul dispenser. Giving him quicker compe ion is only going to expose him more.
I love Neal and i have zero doubt that he will try his guts out but i cannot help but feel that this only serves to set him up to fail.
I know Corey Joseph will probably not see much playing time, but I would try him out with Manu. Manu handles the ball on offense und Joseph who is said to be a good defender takes care of the opponents point guard. However, I agree with the people here saying that the Spurs should stop this combo guard thing. Spurs realy do need another PG if Tony Parker goes down with an injury which is more likely this season as he will play internationally.
If by share you mean Hill would bring the ball up and then hand it off to Manu to make plays, then yes they shared PG duties. When he said Manu acts as the de-facto PG, I believe that's what he's talking about. I think you're actually agreeing.
I don't think anyone thinks it's ideal that Neal play backup PG, but what are the other options? Does anyone actually take comfort that Quinn would be a better option? If Parker went down with an injury, are people actually going to feel great about Quinn taking over the team? Of course not. We have no great backup PG no matter who it is. The team is going to have to make do with the players they have and try to play the better players as much as they can. That's what most teams do in the playoffs - they play their best players. I don't see why the situation should be considered that much different for the team with this situation.
Perhaps we can explore doing a trade or signing a veteran? Those are an options that can be done now in the offseason (I should say, after the lockout). I'm just hoping the Spurs feel there's a need there, instead of thinking we can make do with what we have.
I don't think anyone is "completely sold" on Neal being a great point-guard. I think some of us our sold on the fact that it's the best situation for the Spurs. I honestly don't think there's a significantly better option the Spurs can turn to, through trade or free agency. You can't tell me you rather have an Arroyo- Gary Neal- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench) over a Gary Neal- James Anderson- Kawhi Leonard (1-2-3 bench).
Parker averaging 32.4 mpg last season had more to do with blowing teams out. Every compe ive game last year Parker played more minutes than his average. If Gary Neal has to play more than 10-12 minutes at the point it will be because the Spurs are either blowing out the opposition or getting blown out-- which then won't be a big deal. If Parker does get injured for a significant amount of time, Gary Neal will either get help from a low tier veteran (best case- Acie Law;worst case- Arroyo-Quinn) or Cory Joseph. In my opinion I rather throw Cory Joseph in the fire, instead of having another Quinn experiment. Joseph's shooting and defensive ability are already at the NBA level- which are the two most important attributes the Spurs would need from him for 15-20 minutes a night-- and if he does well then you expand that role (again this is under your pessimistic theory of Parker getting injured for a significant amount of time).
You're over exaggerating. Exploiting mismatches in the post and exploiting mismatches at the point is apples and oranges. Point guards initiate the offense farther away from the basket- where teams on the defensive are able to use the concept of team defense more often and more effectively by cutting of penetrating lanes off the ball and keeping the point guard out of the paint.
Sure it does leave the wide-open threes on occasion- but most of the time the defending point guards are beaten anyway because of a good pick that is set (even if the defending point guard is very quick;90% of dominant offensive point guards initiate the offense through the pick- therefore most of the reasoning behind stopping the point-guard has to do with an adequate mobile big who can hedge effectively enough for the point guard to recover going over/under the screen).
Am I saying you don't need an decent point guard and all you need is a great defensive big man? No i'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is it's kind of foolish to be so pessimistic on the Neal situation. Some of you make it sound like Neal is going to face Russel Westbrook in a one on one 82 game series next year to decide the Spurs' fate. That is not the situation.
The real situation is that Neal will have to battle recovering effectively through variety of screens for 10-12 minutes in the compe ive games and 15-20 minutes a night when the game is out of hand. I think he's more than capable to handle that load, especially with the help of his teammates on the defensive end. There's not enough evidence to say he can't do the job like you're assuming. In my opinion, stopping point guards has more to do with your big's ability to hedge and recover and at the same time, defend the paint by contesting effectively without fouling. Because point guards will and do get in the lane, whether Bruce Bowen or Gary Neal is guarding them because of the screen and poor defense by the helping big.
On the contrary, in the post is where it's much easier to exploit mismatches because of how close it is to the basket ( where there's less help behind the defender and it's where the most efficient shots are scored). That is why team's with dominant interior presence usually get very far at the end of the year because it's the hardest to defend because of how close it is to the basket and how far the help has to commit- only to slightly effect the situation because of the size of the post presence and because of how it leaves shooters wide-bare naked open.
It's the best current situation, but player movement hasn't even begun. Maybe they are able to trade Jefferson, without taking back an SF with a bad contract? Or, maybe they do take back an SF with a less expensive (but still bad) contract, but there's a one time amnesty and Pop/Buford talk Holt into buying him out? Or, maybe they talk Holt into buying Jefferson out? Maybe there's a quality PF unexpectedly available and the Spurs are forced to give up Anderson in the trade? There's tons of possibilities. If the perimeter rotation stays status quo, then of course it makes the most sense to play Neal at the point.
Fair enough, but when Parker inevitably get's injured, they're going to need a steady hand to turn to. Maybe Joseph surprises and is that guy, but there's no logical reason to think he is that guy at this point. The bottom of the barrel types you mentioned aren't good enough, someone a cut above is necessary.Parker averaging 32.4 mpg last season had more to do with blowing teams out. Every compe ive game last year Parker played more minutes than his average. If Gary Neal has to play more than 10-12 minutes at the point it will be because the Spurs are either blowing out the opposition or getting blown out-- which then won't be a big deal. If Parker does get injured for a significant amount of time, Gary Neal will either get help from a low tier veteran (best case- Acie Law;worst case- Arroyo-Quinn) or Cory Joseph. In my opinion I rather throw Cory Joseph in the fire, instead of having another Quinn experiment. Joseph's shooting and defensive ability are already at the NBA level- which are the two most important attributes the Spurs would need from him for 15-20 minutes a night-- and if he does well then you expand that role (again this is under your pessimistic theory of Parker getting injured for a significant amount of time).
Sounds great, if you ignore the fact that the Spurs are not much better than an average defensive team (though a move or two could change that) and don't have an abundance of mobility.You're over exaggerating. Exploiting mismatches in the post and exploiting mismatches at the point is apples and oranges. Point guards initiate the offense farther away from the basket- where teams on the defensive are able to use the concept of team defense more often and more effectively by cutting of penetrating lanes off the ball and keeping the point guard out of the paint.
Sure it does leave the wide-open threes on occasion- but most of the time the defending point guards are beaten anyway because of a good pick that is set (even if the defending point guard is very quick;90% of dominant offensive point guards initiate the offense through the pick- therefore most of the reasoning behind stopping the point-guard has to do with an adequate mobile big who can hedge effectively enough for the point guard to recover going over/under the screen).
Am I saying you don't need an decent point guard and all you need is a great defensive big man? No i'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is it's kind of foolish to be so pessimistic on the Neal situation. Some of you make it sound like Neal is going to face Russel Westbrook in a one on one 82 game series next year to decide the Spurs' fate. That is not the situation.
The real situation is that Neal will have to battle recovering effectively through variety of screens for 10-12 minutes in the compe ive games and 15-20 minutes a night when the game is out of hand. I think he's more than capable to handle that load, especially with the help of his teammates on the defensive end. There's not enough evidence to say he can't do the job like you're assuming. In my opinion, stopping point guards has more to do with your big's ability to hedge and recover and at the same time, defend the paint by contesting effectively without fouling. Because point guards will and do get in the lane, whether Bruce Bowen or Gary Neal is guarding them because of the screen and poor defense by the helping big.
On the contrary, in the post is where it's much easier to exploit mismatches because of how close it is to the basket ( where there's less help behind the defender and it's where the most efficient shots are scored). That is why team's with dominant interior presence usually get very far at the end of the year because it's the hardest to defend because of how close it is to the basket and how far the help has to commit- only to slightly effect the situation because of the size of the post presence and because of how it leaves shooters wide-bare naked open.
You're underestimating how many lightning quick PG's there are and how teams will exploit the Spurs. These are just the backups: Teague, Walker, Barea, Beaubois, Ford, Flynn, Bledsoe, Douglas, Williams, Brooks, Mills and Bayless. You just saw what happened to the Lakers against the Mavs. It wasn't the only reason they lost, but arguably the biggest on court reason was their inability to contain the ball. When coupled with their lack of mobility defensively (and subsequent slow rotations), it led to the abundance of open threes.
Neal is a mediocre defender to begin with and you don't think there's the potential for disaster with him guarding even more explosive players? If this were the Spurs of old defensively, this would be irrelevant. There's no evidence, because we haven't seen it yet, but does that not mean we can't hypothesize? Did we really need to wait and see Blair defend in the NBA to know that he'd struggle?
It is easier to exploit mismatches in the post, but that's not the point. The point is, if you have such a glaring weakness, it's going to be exploited. This team, in recent seasons seems to have some obsession with playing players out of their natural position. As opposed to constructing a roster where their best five fit seamlessly together and where their players are playing their natural position. Other than Marion playing some backup four, the Mavs didn't consistently play anyone out of position. The Lakers haven't in recent years either. All they've done is combined to win the past three championships, but apparently the Spurs know better, with their zero second round wins in that span.
Exactly my point.
At the same time, I rather use the current trading assets for a starting caliber power forward that has the length, size, and mobility to defend and rebound effectively. That is the biggest issue right now. A lot more so than trying to improve the back-up point guard situation which would only hinder the progression of our best young prospects at the wing.
I don't think it is as necessary.
I'm not underestimating how lightning quick some point guards are. I'm just understanding their limited roles on irrelevant teams. I don't think this is as relevant as you're implying. The only mismatch that should have the Spurs worry about is Barea (and he might not even return to Dallas--because of the additions of Butler/Fernandez). The other players play for teams that aren't in contention or play for teams in other conferences and at the same time they are back-ups who play limited minutes and have a small role for their teams. It's not as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.
The biggest issue is interior defense, now that Spurs have improved their perimeter defense with the additions of Leonard and essentially Anderson.
No I don't think it's a recipe for "disaster". Why? I elaborated above on why.
I think improving the Blair and Bonner situation is the bigger issue. Spurs just can't play them together. Spurs have to improve that situation through trade by parting with one of them. Having them on the court simultaneously hurts the defense in so many ways. If Spurs can't improve that area, it doesn't matter who the Spurs have on the perimeter to defend-- the paint will get exposed by guards and post players.
Why not?
Several reasons
1) Talent
2) Defensive ceiling
3) Offensive ceiling
4) Size
5) Progression of Anderson and Leonard (two best wing prospects in the Spurs organization)-- They need playing time and are more than capable.
6) Arroyo/Quinn type isn't significantly better than Neal in any point guard attribute on either end of the floor. Therefore, playing an Arroyo/Quinn type just because they are a labeled "point guard" is a stupid thing to do if it hinders the progression of young players with higher ceilings. Playing Neal at back-up point allows the Spurs to develop and give their best young talent playing time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
