Reply With Quote
Pop needs to have someone face-guard Klay Thompson AT ALL TIMES. Never leave this guy's side.
Diaw and Splitter can do well defending guards ocassionally when they switch on pick and rolls but in no way should we have them guarding guards at all times. Bigs tend to feel atracted to the paint and that wouldn't go with the plan of staying home with the shooters, not to mention the lack of spacing/shooting/speed that the Spurs would have on offense by playing with two bigs instead of another wing.
It's no coincidence that the Spurs have made their biggest runs in both games while playing small.
Pop needs to have someone face-guard Klay Thompson AT ALL TIMES. Never leave this guy's side.
Where they do have size is on the perimeter with guys like Thompson, Barnes and Green.
The Spurs can't play better small ball than the Warriors for 48 minutes. They're going to need to rely on their bigs/defense.
Small ball is a gimmick for scoring lots of points in a hurry but the Spurs are not going to win this series by playing 48 minutes of small ball. They're just not athletic enough. If the Nuggets couldn't do it, there's no way the Spurs can.
We defend them better by playing small ball.
Are you even watching the same game. this Spurs team needs to get it's iden y back and that's certainly not going small. Defense is the key .
The last thing this spurs team needs is more of Gary Neal ing up or Harrison Barnes posting Tony Parker.
You want proof the effect Tiago splitter has on this warriors team go watch the start of 4th up until he got subbed out.The guy was a presense and had Curry scrambling. TNT did a 4 successive plays straight after which had Tiago involved in every-one of them. Tunnel vision Spurs fans will focus on that missed dunk.
P'n'R defense wont work if it's TD on the switch out on the perimeter. Play him with Tiago defending the PnR and Duncan back to rim protecting.
Pop's gone away from this team's strenth. Spurs can't outgun this warriors team.
Thats how Pop likes to roll.
This is why there is no fear in the warriors right now. Why should they be afraid they are playing their game. Spurs should forcing them to be worried about how they are going to play against the Spurs.
Yes, I'm watching the games. The games in which the Spurs have played better defense and have outscored the Warriors by 25 pts whenever they go small. What games have you been watching?
And I'm sorry but that Duncan/Spliter/pick and roll defense argument you brought is just re ed. You can't select which big defends the pick roll and which one protects the basket, the ofense decides that by selecting who sets the pick, if it's the big that Duncan is guarding Duncan will have to be the one that defends the pick and roll wheter you like or not and I don't know how much rim protection the other big could be doing when he would need to stay on the perimeter guarding a three point shooter, either that or allow a wide open three, and I don't know if you have been paying attention but leaving guys alone on three point territory hasn't been working for us, tbh.
Last edited by DAF86; 05-09-2013 at 01:04 PM.
With that said, I agree with the premise of starting Spliter and Duncan toghether to give us the chance of seeing if the team that played toghether for most of the year can do well but if things start going downhill you have to press the small ball buton very early in the game.
When they are outplaying/exposing you the way these Warriors have been doing to us, you have to change things up. The teams that are being outplayed are the ones that need to adjust, not the other way around.
Did the 2010 champ lakers ever go small to match their opponents or did they shove their 2 bigs down the other teams throats? Force THEM to adjust. Bonner shouldn't be in a small ball lineup because he can't defend perimeter guys. Bonner is our answer against teams that want to throw 2 bigs at us, as he creates issues for their defense. Diaw should get the minutes as the 1st big off the bench
I would agree, but the spurs have been running a system all year with our two "best" bigmen, and they have yet to see the floor together at the same time to even be exposed. So I don't think the answer to small ball is even smaller ball, at least without going with what what got you to the playoffs to begin with.
They imposed their 2 bigs 'cause A) They went for offensive rebounds unlike our soft asses that run to the defensive side of the floor before even taking the shot by design and B) 'cause their 2 bigs where among the best 3/4 bigmen in the bussines. That's not the case with our past prime, sick Tim Duncan and our role playing Tiago Splitter.
You didn't watched the game hum? Our offense looked like playing small, our guards just stand in the corner, there is no movement, just isoball.
And our defense looked like playing small. There is no advantage.
Bigs set screens, bigs move without the ball, bigs know how to play help defense, OUR bigs are quick enough to stay in front of guards. But hey let's ignore the best defensive lineup in the NBA and play small with Neal.
2nd half D was good as the spurs were able to limit them to 38 points and gave up 62 points in the first half.
In the second Pop started with Tony, Neal, Green and Tim and stayed with small ball 'till there were 8:07 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter where he inexplically inserted Bonner for Green, in that span San Antonio outscored Golden State 35 to 24 which means that small ball allowed GS only 24 pts in 16 minutes of play. Just to give you an idea in this same game GS scored 28 in the first (so 12 minutes) against the Spurs playing two conventional bigs at all times.
And our defense looked like playing small. There is no advantage.
Bigs set screens, bigs move without the ball, bigs know how to play help defense, OUR bigs are quick enough to stay in front of guards. But hey let's ignore the best defensive lineup in the NBA and play small with Neal
In game 1 Pop introduced small ball with 4:31 remaining in the third and stay with 'till the end of the game in that Span the Spurs outscored GS 60 to 51 in 26:31 minutes of play, in the same game Golden State scored 76 pts in about 30 minutes against the Spurs big line-up.
So please tell me more about how our defense and the team in general sucks more by playing small ball.
Ignoring the 1st halfIn the second Pop started with Tony, Neal, Green and Tim and stayed with small ball 'till there were 8:07 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter where he inexplically inserted Bonner for Green, in that span San Antonio outscored Golden State 35 to 24 which means that small ball allowed GS only 24 pts in 16 minutes of play. Just to give you an idea in this same game GS scored 28 in the first (so 12 minutes) against the Spurs playing two conventional bigs at all times.
In game 1 Pop introduced small ball with 4:31 remaining in the third and stay with 'till the end of the game in that Span the Spurs outscored GS 60 to 51 in 26:31 minutes of play, in the same game Golden State scored 76 pts in about 30 minutes against the Spurs big line-up.
So please tell me more about how our defense and the team in general sucks more by playing small ball.
lol 3 minutes of small ball in the first half. Ok count that if you want. The Spurs still outscore and defend better with small ball line-ups than traditional ones. So now what?Ignoring the 1st half
How do u know that? We didn't play our traditional ones
Tim and Tiago need to start together. We aren't getting good looks with small ball, it just isn't happening. If they wanna guard Tiago or Tim with a SF we should be able to shove the ball inside and enforce our gameplan on offense. If they think they can take advantage of it then let them try. Right now Pop is basically betting that our terrible looks on offense can beat their 40 percent shooting on threes. If we all agree that they're gonna shoot about 40 percent from three as a team regardless of who we send at them, then we should try to maximize the looks we get by you know, maybe RUNNING THE WE'VE RUN ALL SEASON.
Pop has let them get away with curry and jack...two of the smallest guys on either team. He has dome nothing to get those guys on the block and punish them down low. But then again, Pop never deviates from the system. Whether the lineup is small or big, the same plays are always run. so by going small, guys are running plays out of position.
Jacking up a lot of shots or putting guys who get their own shots on the floor is a gimmick. The Spurs' offense relies on ball movement, which isn't there because there are no bigs. The lack of offense is magnified by the inability to get stops, which, again is because of lack of size in the middle.
using game 1 as reference is stupid. You need to realise that was a lucky win for the spurs. spurs players have comfirmed the same. That GS team gave the game away with Curry gassed and Clay Thompson fouling out. Goin small means trying to outgun and outmuscle their smalls who are essentially more athletic, bigger and better shooters than spurs smalls. The same smalls who also have showen to be mistake prone defending. You would play into GS hands, playing warriors style basketball hoping they choke again. They came into game 2 full of confidence and got the win so it aint happening again.
Your use of small ball stats are misleading, just fooling yourself really.Coach jackson has already stated he will match-up with Pop. When Pop went with Diaw as starter , GS went with Eziely. When Pop went with Bonner , jackson went with SF Barnes. Using the pop went with coventional bigs arguement doen't fly since Jackson looks at Bonner as a perimeter player and we all know what defense he offers. IF splitter starts Ezily or Landry will start. Doesn't matter what GS does on offense . You have Splitter guard their best picker in Bogut when Ezily is out there. If they go with Landry , then that's splitter's man. It's not that complicated.
we both on the same page then.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions