If It Ain't Broke ...

[Brazil]

This serie is and will be totally different than the serie against the mavs.
- The lack of bigs depth won't be an issue for the spurs, even a manu hill tp rj and tim lineup could work well.
- This serie the TP coming off the bench could be a bad decision: TP would take way more advantage of his matchup against Nash than against Dragic. Hill has still difficulties to handle quick PG and good ball handling PG ala Nash on the other hand he has the size and the quality to take advantage of the Dragic matchup.
- Bonner could be another thing than a liability this serie, I think he will be efficient against Frye or Dudley + the suns don't defend well the 3 points which could give him confidence (it is just an impression didn't check the stats).
- I disagree with the "give Mason 0 min" theory, one moment or another we will need him, this serie could be an opportunity to try to give him confidence back.

[Mel_13]

The reasoning for starting TP v. the Suns is solid, but I would point to game 6 of the Dallas series. Tony entered the game after 5 minutes were gone in the first quarter and after only 3 minutes were gone in the 3rd. Pop can get Tony the great majority of his minutes playing against Nash without a change in the starting line-up.

(In the Blazer series Dragic played most of his minutes covering the last two minutes of first and third quarters and the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters.)

[Spurs Brazil]

Great read Blackjack

[Blackjack]

- I disagree with the "give Mason 0 min" theory, one moment or another we will need him, this serie could be an opportunity to try to give him confidence back.

Mason could actually be useful in this series, and he will see some action. And since he has had some success against Phoenix and even authored his most famous moment against them -- the nationally-televised buzzer-beater on Christmas -- there's a possibility that the guy's past experience gives him the confidence to step up and help the cause. But if he's the player he's been for the majority of the year during the series, he's got no business on the court -- I wish there'd been some kind of indication that he could be counted on; the Spurs' three-point attack could surely use bolstering.

The reasoning for starting TP v. the Suns is solid, but I would point to game 6 of the Dallas series. Tony entered the game after 5 minutes were gone in the first quarter and after only 3 minutes were gone in the 3rd. Pop can get Tony the great majority of his minutes playing against Nash without a change in the starting line-up.

(In the Blazer series Dragic played most of his minutes covering the last two minutes of first and third quarters and the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters.)

And that's what I was getting at.

Call it reasoning, rationale, logic or conventional wisdom, the fact is if you just look at the matchup and the tangible evidence, it's hard to come away thinking Parker shouldn't be starting.

But basketball isn't played on paper or in a vacuum ... there are extenuating cir stances -- the chemistry of teammates and collective rhythm of a team being the ones most affected by such a change, negatively or positively.

There's definitely a possibility that Hill starting works out. The Game 6 example makes sense and it could very well net a similar result to having Parker start the game. But, again, it's just the logic of starting Parker. It make a lot of sense and I can't help but think it's going to be something that will end up happening -- hopefully, if it does, the Spurs won't wish they had done it sooner.

[TD 21]

My guess is the biggest change Pop was alluding to was running the offense through Duncan more. Making the Parker for Ginobili switch is something we'll probably see if Ginobili continues to struggle, Parker continues his history of dominating the Suns and the Spurs are down 2-0 or 2-1. At this point, it would probably take all three of those things happening simultaneously for that change to occur.

[Blackjack]

If It Ain't Broke

Break it -- Pop's got the adversity and impetus to do it now.

You never want to knee-jerk after a single playoff loss but you could see this coming: Nash's success against Hill; the poor spacing with the lack of a 3-point attack and spot-up shooters surrounding Tim; and the mental lapses that lead to a transition game that's second to none. Two of those things can definitely be rectified (start Parker and bring a better effort and focus to the game for the all-so-cliche 48-minutes) but the spacing is going to be a problem.

How's this for a mea culpa: I think the Spurs might need to start Bogans.

I know, you've just tasted a bit of that dinner you had 4-6 hours ago, but the Spurs need spacing for Tim. I don't think he's going to all of a sudden knock down his threes at a 40-percent clip, but the Suns honored him tonight and the Spurs could probably get away with it to start the game, if only to get Tim and Tony doing their thing.

Hill should ideally come off the bench to match up against Dragic and play less minutes against the bigger wings, who can post him up or take advantage of their size, but I don't think you can go that route. You just can't risk losing Hill for the series and a demotion and lesser role/assignment risks exactly just that -- I'd go back to the pre-injury lineup of Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan; Tim and Tony get the spot-up shooters in the corners to garner better spacing and George gets to finish more off the ball and attack a rotating or on-their-heels defense. Hopefully you get by with it for a good 5-6 minutes before having to go to the bench.

The 3-point shot has been a big concern of mine and the lack of it could ultimately doom this team in the end. But they can beat the Suns if they just clean up the things they can control -- keep the mental lapses to a minimum (i.e: transition, turnovers, rotations and KYP), rebound the ball, get Duncan on the move and starting more from the high post to get him out of traffic (that's where the spot-up shooting can help to start the game, as well) and start Tony Parker. It's doable, they've just got to do it.

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

[rayray2k8]

It's broken now.

[ChumpDumper]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

[Blackjack]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

That's actually some flawless logic.

[kace]

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

Parker success in those game where his drive are so huge relies also a lot on 3 pts shooting. Hope manu, hill and RJ will show up in that area.

[jag]

uva writeup. Props

[DAF86]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

Rick Carlisle should hire ChumpDumper to explain Mavsfans why Roddy Beaubois didn't get more playing time.

[L.I.T]

The Manu/Blair/RJeff group off the bench was particularly effective during the latter part of the season (prior to TP going down). If I remember correctly, a coach even said that Blair works better with Manu than Dice does because of Blair's ability to cut and catch on the move.

Bogans could be effective against Richardson defensively; but Nash likely will be able to hide on him on defense.

It's incredibly risky though benching Manu + RJeff and starting Bogans. If you're going to bench someone, Manu makes perfect sense since his ego and his game likely won't suffer since he's used to being in this position; one that Hill is not used to.

It could have the payoff of turning a decided disadvantage (the bench) into a slight edge to the Spurs. But damn...Bogans in the starting lineup just sounds wrong on so many levels.

[Blackjack]

Parker success in those game where his drive are so huge relies also a lot on 3 pts shooting. Hope manu, hill and RJ will show up in that area.

That's why I think it'd benefit the team more to have him start with Tim, 'Dyess and two spot-up shooters in the corners (Hill and Bogans). Tim and Tony will benefit from the spacing and find a better rhythm quicker because of the touches and opportunities they'll be given -- the offense will be run through Tony and Tim exclusively which can set the tone and rhythm for them for the duration of the game; RJ's not going to be hitting more than a few threes this series and neither Manu or George are what you'd deem marksman -- Ginobili's streaky and Hill's proficiency is pretty much confined to the corner. The 3-point shooting just isn't there and they're going to have to create a lot of spacing with smoke and mirrors.

Manu, RJ and Blair should be able to pick up right where they left off. Manu's playmaking was a godsend to those two when they were united the first time and I don't see any reason why it can't be done again. I honestly think it's the best way this team can create the right balance and spacing to get the ship going in the right direction, before you cut the rotation down the stretch of the game and play your best 5 or 6 -- I just lament the fact that Pop and the Spurs have to rely on Bogans and not a younger (even if inexperienced), but more skilled player, who was developed during the course of the year (and that's not necessarily Hairston, thought it very well could've been, but someone of that ilk -- maybe Temple should get a look?).

It was just painfully obvious how much easier it was for Phoenix's wings to disrupt the halfcourt offense with deflections, digs in the post and their ability to recover to shooters because of the closer proximity. That's gotsta change.

[Blackjack]

It could have the payoff of turning a decided disadvantage (the bench) into a slight edge to the Spurs. But damn...Bogans in the starting lineup just sounds wrong on so many levels.

Trust me, I know. ... I didn't come to this conclusion all that willingly.

I just think the pros outweigh the cons when you're talking Hill over Jefferson in the starting lineup, and Bogans is a bit of a necessary evil to start the game.

When it comes to Hill, he's not the type of player that's going to come off the bench and start lighting up a team offensively -- his offense is pretty rudimentary at this point and he finds a lot of his success off the ball and in transition. And since there's not a real natural matchup for him defensively (one that would keep him on the court for that purpose, anyway) bringing him off the bench would diminish his role, and maybe even his effectiveness (to some degree), which is something the Spurs just can't afford since he's been their fourth best player.

RJ, on the other hand, he thrives alongside Manu. So does Blair (which could help to bring a little more quality to their current depth). And I don't see there being any kind of problem for RJ in this cir stance -- he'll get a feel of the game before going in and he'll see a better quality of touches and possessions with Manu at the point of the attack upon entry; the goal is to basically stoke the flames of your five-to-seven best players individually to start the game, and have it build to a good size fire collectively by the end of the game.

[TD 21]

Break it -- Pop's got the adversity and impetus to do it now.

You never want to knee-jerk after a single playoff loss but you could see this coming: Nash's success against Hill; the poor spacing with the lack of a 3-point attack and spot-up shooters surrounding Tim; and the mental lapses that lead to a transition game that's second to none. Two of those things can definitely be rectified (start Parker and bring a better effort and focus to the game for the all-so-cliche 48-minutes) but the spacing is going to be a problem.

How's this for a mea culpa: I think the Spurs might need to start Bogans.

I know, you've just tasted a bit of that dinner you had 4-6 hours ago, but the Spurs need spacing for Tim. I don't think he's going to all of a sudden knock down his threes at a 40-percent clip, but the Suns honored him tonight and the Spurs could probably get away with it to start the game, if only to get Tim and Tony doing their thing.

Hill should ideally come off the bench to match up against Dragic and play less minutes against the bigger wings, who can post him up or take advantage of their size, but I don't think you can go that route. You just can't risk losing Hill for the series and a demotion and lesser role/assignment risks exactly just that -- I'd go back to the pre-injury lineup of Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan; Tim and Tony get the spot-up shooters in the corners to garner better spacing and George gets to finish more off the ball and attack a rotating or on-their-heels defense. Hopefully you get by with it for a good 5-6 minutes before having to go to the bench.

The 3-point shot has been a big concern of mine and the lack of it could ultimately doom this team in the end. But they can beat the Suns if they just clean up the things they can control -- keep the mental lapses to a minimum (i.e: transition, turnovers, rotations and KYP), rebound the ball, get Duncan on the move and starting more from the high post to get him out of traffic (that's where the spot-up shooting can help to start the game, as well) and start Tony Parker. It's doable, they've just got to do it.

But it all starts with Parker. It's time to let him run roughshod in Phoenix once again.

You're right, there needed to be reason or cause to make the switch; past history wasn't enough. And being that he is a young player, the Spurs could have easily lost Hill mentally for the series by making this move prior to the series. How much does he know and why would he care about past triumphs over the Suns and how the Spurs were successful with Parker attacking Nash? To him, that probably means very little. His mindset probably was, "this team played their best ball of the season with me starting, I came up big in round one, why would I not at least get the chance to start in round two?" But now, after the beating Nash administered on him and Parker again going off against the Suns, I think Hill would understand the switch.

Bogans hardly offers more spacing than Jefferson. I know we should base it primarily on this season, but career-wise they're basically even as three point shooters and even this season, until Jefferson completely fell off in this regard down the stretch, they were basically even throughout most of the season. Throw in the fact that Jefferson is bigger, more athletic and more talented and the fact that Bogans is shooting the three slightly better doesn't make him a better option to offer spacing any more than Jefferson.

The problem is Jefferson's sudden reluctance to shoot the three. In the second half, he wouldn't even go behind the line. He needs to be willing to shoot the corner three in particular. I don't care if he goes 0-3 off of wide open looks. Taking them (even if they are all misses) and keeping the defense honest is better than not taking them at all and making it so much easier on them rotation-wise. If you're going to shoot in the low 30's, the defense won't respect you much, but if you're not going to shoot at all, they won't respect you at all and that allows them to load up on Duncan more. It's about getting Jefferson to take the shot when it's there and (to pull a Marc Jackson) living with the results.

As much as we talk about slowing them, particularly in transition, the reality is the Spurs aren't as good defensively as they once were, so if they plan on beating them they're going to have to score. Bogans can't help in this regard; Jefferson can. Pop needs to not over think things and always look to match-up with the Suns, but rather play his six-seven most talented players the majority of the minutes. If the Spurs are going to win this series, that's how they're going to do it.

That being said, I've had enough of Bonner/Mason. Bogans should be the eighth man in an eight man rotation and those two should be riding the pine. No more chances. They're not cut out for playing games with this type of pressure. You need guys (again, to pull a Jackson) not afraid of the moment. Maybe Mason's excuse is more injury related, at this point I don't care. Bonner, he's clearly afraid of the moment. Instead of trusting his shot, he's over penetrating.

[Shastafarian]

Play Temple.

I'm just going to keep saying that since it won't happen and I can act like it would win the series.

Temple doesn't need to play. What happened to the 8 man playoff rotation?

Parker-Hill-Manu-RJ-Blair-Bonner(cringe)-Tim-Dice

I mean, if temple can play legit defense then ok. Mason should not play again. I'd be fine with bogans sitting as well since he won't produce like he did last night (it's sad that I'm forced to call what he did last night production). I'd rather see Hairston than Mason at this point. At least Hairston hustles and can get to the rim on occasion.

[L.I.T]

I just think the pros outweigh the cons when you're talking Hill over Jefferson in the starting lineup, and Bogans is a bit of a necessary evil to start the game.

When it comes to Hill, he's not the type of player that's going to come off the bench and start lighting up a team offensively -- his offense is pretty rudimentary at this point and he finds a lot of his success off the ball and in transition. And since there's not a real natural matchup for him defensively (one that would keep him on the court for that purpose, anyway) bringing him off the bench would diminish his role, and maybe even his effectiveness (to some degree), which is something the Spurs just can't afford since he's been their fourth best player.

RJ, on the other hand, he thrives alongside Manu. So does Blair (which could help to bring a little more quality to their current depth). And I don't see there being any kind of problem for RJ in this cir stance -- he'll get a feel of the game before going in and he'll see a better quality of touches and possessions with Manu at the point of the attack upon entry; the goal is to basically stoke the flames of your five-to-seven best players individually to start the game, and have it build to a good size fire collectively by the end of the game.

I agree about Hill not necessarily being able to be an offensive spark-plug or being able to effectively coordinate the bench mob.

But, I just wonder if benching two of your starters is too much of a drastic move; would Pop really want to do that after just one game? Benching Hill for TP makes perfect sense.

In a way, so does benching Manu and RJeff. Both of them I'm sure are resilient mentally enough to be able to quickly make the transition.

I wonder if we would see Pop bench Hill for TP, and if that doesn't work after Game 2, making the Manu/RJeff for Hill/Bogans move going into Game 3.

Or would that be too much tinkering...

[MannyIsGod]

Temple doesn't need to play. What happened to the 8 man playoff rotation?

The Suns uptempo and only one game off between games happened.

[Russ]

If Bogans doesn't play a fair amount along this playoff run, and contribute some timely D (and maybe a timely 3), I don't see the Spurs getting where they want to go.

He still reminds me of Bowen, dammit. (I'd even throw him on Nash every once in a while).

[Blackjack]

Bogans hardly offers more spacing than Jefferson[/B]. I know we should base it primarily on this season, but career-wise they're basically even as three point shooters and even this season, until Jefferson completely fell off in this regard down the stretch, they were basically even throughout most of the season.

The problem is Jefferson's sudden reluctance to shoot the three. In the second half, he wouldn't even go behind the line. He needs to be willing to shoot the corner three in particular. I don't care if he goes 0-3 off of wide open looks. Taking them (even if they are all misses) and keeping the defense honest is better than not taking them at all and making it so much easier on them rotation-wise. If you're going to shoot in the low 30's, the defense won't respect you much, but if you're not going to shoot at all, they won't respect you at all and that allows them to load up on Duncan more. It's about getting Jefferson to take the shot when it's there and (to pull a Marc Jackson) living with the results.

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.

That being said, I've had enough of Bonner/Mason. Bogans should be the eighth man in an eight man rotation and those two should be riding the pine. No more chances. They're not cut out for playing games with this type of pressure. You need guys (again, to pull a Jackson) not afraid of the moment. Maybe Mason's excuse is more injury related, at this point I don't care. Bonner, he's clearly afraid of the moment. Instead of trusting his shot, he's over penetrating.

Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

[Blackjack]

I agree about Hill not necessarily being able to be an offensive spark-plug or being able to effectively coordinate the bench mob.

But, I just wonder if benching two of your starters is too much of a drastic move; would Pop really want to do that after just one game? Benching Hill for TP makes perfect sense.

In a way, so does benching Manu and RJeff. Both of them I'm sure are resilient mentally enough to be able to quickly make the transition.

I wonder if we would see Pop bench Hill for TP, and if that doesn't work after Game 2, making the Manu/RJeff for Hill/Bogans move going into Game 3.

Or would that be too much tinkering...

I think if you start playing lineups that haven't found a chemistry or much success along the way ... that's too much tinkering.

But if you're doing what I'm suggesting, I don't think there's be a problem; and it's basically benching one starter (RJ -- you're trading out Manu for Tony) and you're bringing that starter back in where he's going to see the ball more and be more involved overall. The goal should be to get Tony off to start the game in this matchup and allow Tim the room to find a rhythm; RJ isn't going to give you much more than Bogans in that scenario.

[TD 21]

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.




Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season, close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in a hole early.

It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

Hill starting at the two? Are you intentionally trying to dig an early hole? He can't guard Richardson in the post. Richardson is already scorching hot and brimming with confidence, why make it even easier for him to get off then it already is?

I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. I would only stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all complete each other perfectly.

[TD 21]

I agree with just about everything here but your conclusion.

No, Bogans isn't going to light it up from three and shouldn't shoot a much better percentage in theory. But he is going to be camped out in the corner and he is going to take the open shots when he's supposed to take them -- he won't be camped two-feet inside the line or off trying to do something inside the three-point line off the ball that will congest the paint for Tony's penetration or Tim's post catches and moves; Bogans would be out there to serve a purpose for a handful of minutes to start the game and not much more for the rest of the game, ideally.

The problem with RJ is he is hesitant and that he's not confident in letting it fly. Pop might as well put Mason in the corner if you're going to ask RJ to start knocking down threes in Phoenix at the moment (because it might as well be a turnover if you're telling a guy lacking the confidence in his three-point shot to just sit behind the line and throw it up there).

My thinking is having the Parker, Hill, Bogans, 'Dyess and Duncan lineup balances the spacing, defense and overall continuity to set the tone and rhythm, for the team and individually, for the remainder of the game -- get Tony and Tim rolling and get off to a better start defensively; bring Manu in with RJ, and maybe even Blair, and let the offense run through Manu to get them rolling; and them unite them all to end the half. Everyone gets a better quality of touch and the opportunity to find a rhythm and feeling good about themselves, then they put it together as a group after all have gotten involved -- simply throwing out the best players from the jump not only depletes the bench but it, more importantly, doesn't utilize the talent all that efficiently or net a great result (if you've got players being wallflowers because the spacing's not right or they're not getting enough quality touches).

They've had two lineups this year that have managed to get them on track and find a winning combination. One's what they used against Dallas and to start this series; and the other's the one I'm suggesting -- to not choose between the two would be a mistake at this point, IMO.




Agreed. And as far as Bogans goes, it's a necessary evil in my eyes, not a preference. If Temple had been with the team all year or logged significant minutes, I'm pretty sure I'd be sold on him over Bogans to do what I'm hoping from him: take the corner 3, play some D and just compliment Tim and Tony long enough to get things going in the right direction -- although the Spurs could probably get more out of him since he's got more potential talent.

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson to camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season and close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in an early hole.

It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs, your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

Hill starting at the two is a terrible idea, seeing as how he can't guard Richardson in the post. Richardson is already scorching hot and brimming with confidence, why make it even easier for him to get off than it already is?

I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. He only needs to stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all compliment each other perfectly.

[Blackjack]

How hard is it for Pop (or Duncan, or whoever) to tell Jefferson to camp out in the corner? In Pop's case, he can tell him if he doesn't do it, he doesn't play. I think he'll get the message rather quickly. Now is not the time for a lack of confidence. This is a shot Jefferson was proficient at last season and close to adequate at this season, so there's no need to not have the confidence to shoot it. They need to explain this to him. He's an intelligent guy, my guess is he'll listen.

I'm wholeheartedly with you in the sentiment, but the reality is what it is.

I mean, yeah, you'd like to hear that Pop and/or Duncan would have a frank discussion with him, "Shoot the ball, pussy! How much are we paying your dainty ass?," but I just don't see that netting a boost in confidence or his three-point percentage. As Barkley would say, "I might be wrong, but I doubt it."

The Spurs are going to have difficulty keeping pace with this team offensively as is; starting Bogans would only exacerbate this problem and likely have them in an early hole.

I don't see them being at some huge defecit, if one at all, for the first five-minutes or so. Their defense isn't going to be worse than what it started out yesterday with Tony on Nash and Bogans on Richardson or Hill, and I don't find it all that troubling to have George on either one for a few minutes; the Suns trying to exploit George works against them as far as I'm concerned -- that means they're in the halfcourt and Amar'e or Nash doesn't have the ball.

It all sounds great in theory. In reality, if you want to win in the playoffs, your best players have to be your best players. They can't do that by sitting on the bench or having their minutes limited. Everyone else is starting their best players (at least positionally).

In theory, I agree with you. But if your five best players don't particularly mesh when it comes to skillset and there's only one ball, just having them out there doesn't mean your maximizing the talent's potential -- the Spurs have to create depth and get a better quality of contribution from the back half of their rotation with the schedule and the age of their best players. This is one of the better ways to do it, IMO.

I used to buy into what you're selling, but this team has enough offense now that if Pop works the rotation properly, they'll have enough offense on the floor at all times. He only needs to stick with the starting lineup for five minutes anyway, then get Ginobili out and bring him back with the majority of the second unit. The idea is don't be down double digits early against this team, which is becoming an all too familiar trend. You have to trust that your most talented players figure it out, even if they don't all compliment each other perfectly.

Honestly, I'm not as worried with the offense if the Spurs have Tony starting. I'm worried about attention to detail, finding the requisite spacing to prevent igniting the Suns transition with deflections; poor floor-balance that leads to poor shots and rebounds to run off; I'm adamant about them pounding the ball into Tim to control pace, tempo and draw fouls; and they must run the ball back down the Suns' throats in transition with Tony and George, while looking to finish at the rim for layups or dunks -- not jumpers or threes. Run for layups and dunks (and I could do without seeing Manu taking the amount of ill-advised threes he took last night).