Spurs Defense: Players or Philosophy?

[Dex]

Going to throw my card in the "Both" hat for this one, but I think they share a symbiotic relationship.

Obviously, our defensive talent has dwindled over the years. Instead of guarding the basket with the likes of David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, Robert Horry, and Bruce Bowen, we've been using Elson and Mason and Bogans and Zombie Dice. One would expect a considerable drop off with that kind of change of personnel.

Consider last season's team: nobody was a lock down defender. Duncan was aging, Ginobili was finding his groove, Parker seemed to have lost focus, Hill's defense was solid but overrated, and everybody else was either learning the system, getting old, or being Matt Bonner.

However, once that team was able to find its groove, even it was able to start putting pressure on opponents and go on a pretty amazing run through the end of the season and first round, and probably finished somewhere in the top 10 defensively despite a lack of defensive talent.

That leads me to believe that the system is obviously sound. It's the foundation of the Spurs philosophy, and still what earns Pop praise as one of the best defensive and overall coaches in the league.

But the right parts can really make the system shine, and I think that may be what it takes to make this team a Top 3 defensive squad again. David Robinson or Bruce Bowen aren't walking through those doors and Tim isn't getting any younger, so the Spurs either need to find some new defensive aces, or they better start getting used to defensive "mediocrity", which for this team still seems to be better than twenty other teams in the league.

[Nathan89]

I disagree with this assessment. The Spurs scored over 100 points in 3 out of the 4 games, which should be enough to win those games. The lack of solid perimeter defense was glaring. When Nash was schooling Hill, we had absolutely nobody to throw at him to cool him down afterwards. Same thing when Dragic caught fire. Guys like Dudley consistently beating Bonner for rebounds. We looked amateurish at times out there (the Dragic show in our building was outright embarrassing), and I don't think anybody had any questions when the sweep materialized.

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

[Dex]

Spurs used to be Ruth's Chris burgers; now we be eatin' McDonald's.

[Nathan89]

I disagree with this assessment. The Spurs scored over 100 points in 3 out of the 4 games, which should be enough to win those games. The lack of solid perimeter defense was glaring. When Nash was schooling Hill, we had absolutely nobody to throw at him to cool him down afterwards. Same thing when Dragic caught fire. Guys like Dudley consistently beating Bonner for rebounds. We looked amateurish at times out there (the Dragic show in our building was outright embarrassing), and I don't think anybody had any questions when the sweep materialized.

I must add that I do believe that the defense was equally responsible for the losses as the offense. The offense was terribly inefficient because of Rj. More misses equals more fast breaks. The defense was terrible but I have to give a lot of credit to the offense of the suns. They had four guys out there who could shoot the three and they were hitting all series. We just could not stop everyone when we collapsed on nash and stoudmire. In the past Kurt Thomas would torch the spurs with the mid-range shot and last year they had a big that could shoot the three consistently. So if you think about it we had to score well over 100pts to beat that team.

[ElNono]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

TBH, the Suns of the past didn't play the same ball that this Suns team. I think it was reflected in the 3 point shooting and what Amare used to average against us vs what he did average in these series. The Spurs also didn't play the same kind of ball as in the past either. I don't think it's really realistic to compare Suns series in the past with this one.

I must add that I do believe that the defense was equally responsible for the losses as the offense. The offense was terribly inefficient because of Rj. More misses equals more fast breaks. The defense was terrible but I have to give a lot of credit to the offense of the suns. They had four guys out there who could shoot the three and they were hitting all series. We just could not stop everyone when we collapsed on nash and stoudmire. In the past Kurt Thomas would torch the spurs with the mid-range shot and last year they had a big that could shoot the three consistently. So if you think about it we had to score well over 100pts to beat that team.

I can buy your premise that it was a combination of both. The thing is, I don't think this Spurs team has it in it to score 120+ consistently night in and out. I don't think they had it 5 years ago and I don't think they have it right now.
So the only thing you can do to make up for the difference is offset it with the defense.

[The Truth #6]

Obviously Pop always wants to focus on defense, but he's let the players become the philosophy to some degree.

He was lucky to have the twin towers...so then the twin towers became the foundation. After David left, Pop was left in a stupor and tried to keep it going with Rasho but that idea of the twin towers eventually faded away when reality set in that we weren't getting another Robinson. That probably should have been obvious. At the moment, we have Blair as our starting power forward. He isn't tall, but Pop has let him be the player who he is (for the most part) and played to his strengths.

Now, Pop is in a stupor trying to find the next Bowen. As with Robinson, it should be obvious this isn't happening. Yes, it's great to focus on defense but a lot of wasted energy and potential is spent trying to mold people and make them fit into the cinderella shoes. Right now Pop is trying to make RJ and Simmons into some version of Bowen. While I agree that RJ needed a refresher in fundamentals, this still strikes me as another case of forcing circle into a square peg.

We just need players who can contribute in some way, and if they have a particular talent, then be willing to adapt that into the "system". Simmons probably sucks on defense...but maybe he has a decent post game that could be utilized from the 3 position? Not saying he does per se, but we need to milk the most we can out of whatever talent we have at this point and be open to pursuing that approach. If this year is the window, trying to mold players into something they aren't.

[silverblk mystix]

It is a little of both.

One thing that hasn't been said but it is pretty obvious;

it wasn't only that Bowen and Timmy were great defenders--it was that they were great defenders--and IN THEIR PRIME.

That in itself is why having the same system can lead the spurs to be a respectable defensive team-but I am not sure that will be enough. If only they had the pieces to be a dominant defensive team.
Unfortunately the offense becomes much more important because the defense will not hold anyone to 70-74 points. (on top of the fact that the NBA rules have also made it harder on defenses.)

[TD 21]

It's a factor of both, even though that's a cop-out answer..

Last year's Spurs team finished 9th defensively, 6th the year before, and 3rd the year before..

This is impressive when you consider the rotation players the Spurs have been putting on the court in those years..terrible defenders(Finley, Mason), soft defenders(Bonner, Jefferson, Parker), average defenders as stoppers(Jefferson, Hill, Bogans, Udoka) and overall poor defenders(Blair)..all those guys were serious rotation players during the last few seasons..

The fact that the Spurs have been putting out players like that, and the fact that the Spurs' have had almost no length or athleticism, yet they still finish high in defensive rankings, means Pop's system still works well..

The Duncan-Bowen factor is obviously the difference in the Spurs being an above average/good defensive team to an elite team..Bowen is a top 2 perimeter defender of his generation, and Duncan is one of the best anchors of all-time..

Bowen's loss has been felt most in 1 on 1/isolation defense..last year's Spurs team was 27th in the NBA at defending 1 on 1/isolation plays, absolutely horrible for a playoff contender with high hopes..it is also felt in defending screens, where the Spurs ranked 18th..Bowen was always one of the best in the NBA at running around and fighting through the screen..

It's a correlation of both but most importantly you need every player committed to defense (so most of the responsibility falls on the players). But in order to have a great defense you need the right personnel. Most importantly, you can't be undersized in the front-court where the most efficient area to score takes place (In the paint). In the NBA, size has mattered ever since the days of Wilt and Russel. Size is what can negate the oppositions conversions in the most efficient area to score. And that is the reason why Spurs have regressed in recent years. They have been undersized in the front-court and they also lost one of the best perimeter defenders to ever lace them up ( who made it harder for the oppositions best perimeter scorer to get to the point or get high % shots).

Once you have the right personnel, you need these players to be moving as one on the defensive end. I don't believe you need a superior Bowen defender on the perimeter; but you need sometype of defensive go to guy so to speak. You also need all 5 guys on the same page that understand the task at hand ( through verbal communication and trust).

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).

It's a correlation of both-- but most importantly you need size and personnel. Then you need your players to be committed to the defensive end. You can't just have just some players on the court being committed, you need all five working in unison.

Both excellent posts.

And as I've stated, I would be inclined to agree. However, at least to me, it's not a given than Bonner will be the minutes loser to Tiago. It's also not a given that Tiago will be so exceptional that he will absorb the entire system that it's seemingly so complex in his rookie season. If it's hard for RJ or Dice, both of whom have plenty of years of experience in the NBA, why would it be so much simpler for Tiago who has yet to step into an NBA court?

But you're correct we disagree what role Tiago will have. And we'll see as the season develops and by the time the playoffs roll around.

I suspect it'll be McDyess, at least for roughly the first half of the season.

Blair looks poised to challenge for Most Improved Player, Splitter needs minutes to acclimate himself and Bonner stretches the floor, but also he's in his prime and isn't a player the Spurs are going to be concerned with wearing down. I'm not advocating playing Bonner over McDyess, but considering McDyess' age, the fact that he has talked a few times about how hard it is on his body to play and that in order for the Spurs to legitimately contend for a championship, they'll likely need him to be the second or third big come playoff time, I suspect he won't play that much early. The odd game I presume he'll play 20-25 mpg, either when Duncan is getting a game off or having his minutes limited or to keep in shape.

[ElNono]

I suspect it'll be McDyess, at least for roughly the first half of the season.

Blair looks poised to challenge for Most Improved Player, Splitter needs minutes to acclimate himself and Bonner stretches the floor, but also he's in his prime and isn't a player the Spurs are going to be concerned with wearing down. I'm not advocating playing Bonner over McDyess, but considering McDyess' age, the fact that he has talked a few times about how hard it is on his body to play and that in order for the Spurs to legitimately contend for a championship, they'll likely need him to be the second or third big come playoff time, I suspect he won't play that much early. The odd game I presume he'll play 20-25 mpg, either when Duncan is getting a game off or having his minutes limited or to keep in shape.

I agree. I think Bonner will play his usual minutes. Maybe a bit less, if it's a blowout, but that's about it. I also fully expect Dice to take minutes away from Tiago once the playoffs roll around, unless Tiago manages to outperform Blair, in which case Blair will be the minute loser, IMO.

[Obstructed_View]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

Interesting point, but the Spurs' defense during many of those playoff matchups was geared to limit the Suns' three point opportunities. That damaged their ability to score severely. Many analysts predicted that the Spurs absolutely couldn't hang with the Suns offensively, which was wrong; the Spurs were also an underrated offensive team at that time. But their bread and butter was their defense. How have the Spurs done at limiting three point attempts in the playoffs the last few years?

[Ginobili2Duncan]

In the past the spurs beat the suns because they were capable of scoring well over a 100pts per game on them. Not because they could lock them down. So I agree with the other guy,the problem was our offense. Our offense led to more opportunities for the suns. All of this is because RJ.

The Spurs scored 100+ points because the Suns were a poor defensive team during the D'Antoni era. They scored 100+ points this year because there were more possessions. They also let Nash and Stoudemire score while staying at home with their 3pt shooters. Then, in the 4th quarter, Bowen guarded Nash and Duncan guarded Stoudemire. If you are a poor defensive team in the regular season, you will have those same habits in the playoffs, and their opponent will get easier shots. In the playoffs, the games slow down, defenses tighten up, and the refs start to swallow their whistles; this obviously favors defensive teams. A good offensive team does not become a better offensive team in the postseason. This is why the Spurs were so successful against the Suns before last season.

[mountainballer]

Celtics are a perfect example of a great elite defensive team without a Bowen. They work as a well oiled machine and each player plays as a part. You also never see Celtics playing small-ball or having an undersized big in the middle (like Bonner).
Then again Celtics have never been undersized in the front-court from a personnel standpoint like the Spurs have the past 2-3 seasons (Bonner, McDyess, Thomas, Oberto, Gooden).

disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

[xellos88330]

The defensive system is solid. The personnel has been a bit lacking. By that I mean the defensive 3.

There have also been rule changes (I think), that make playing defense out on the perimeter much more difficult. So the average perimeter defender will not be able to play the type of physical pressure defense that Bowen would employ.

[Obstructed_View]

It's becoming increasingly clear that number 12 needs to be in the rafters. Removing the shot blocking from beside Duncan was bad, but Bowen was able not only able to prevent it from becoming a disaster, but he was able to help them win another le.

[#2!]

disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

To me, Rondo is the only guy you mentioned who the Spurs' roster can't definitively produce a relatively good counterpart for. Tim is in the same boat as KG, and actually we may find out this season that Splitter can be the defender needed next to Tim (not in the same ways of course, pn'r should be better, and he'll have to use footwork more than sheer strength (which I've heard he's good at)).

Allen's level matches Manu's (though again different strengths and weaknesses).

Pierce is a capable defender but not anything special, certainly no better than RJ has been at times in his career. Even though he couldn't be relied on last season I still believe he's an at ude adjustment away from being at least as good as Pierce probably better with proper commitment.

Tony Allen is a veteran, which always helps in defending, but George Hill has a commitment to defending. I know people on this site have begun to take digs at Hill for not being as good as advertised defensively, but I think they go to far, and forget he's still above average against 2 guards (his natural position). I think his physical abilities, along with a commitment to D that has been put in place by Pop convincing him he should be a stopper for the team, will only lead him to improvement on defense.

Outside of those guys I wouldn't say either O'Neal or Davis are better than McDyess or Blair. The Spurs have the tools to play tough, effective team defense.

[TD 21]

disagree.
it's right, the Celtics work very well as a team on defense (Rivers is a great coach there, much like Pop). but that's not the crucial factor for their NBA best defense.
they DO have special defensive talents, who are NBA top 3 at their position.
Rondo currently IS probably the best defender among PGs. (no doubt he is top 3)
yes, Garnett isn't as dominant as he used to be (like Tim), but he still is one of the best defenders at his position. (when healthy, KG is still top 5 at defending his position)
and other than Tim, Garnett has Perkins to help him.
and Perkins is a rock. not even Dwight Howard was able to overpower him. Perkins is a top 3 interior defender. (his injury was the key for the Lakers win)

PP has always been a good defender (as long as he doesn't need to guard super quick opponents) and Allen has always had the ability to at least play decent defense (what he didn't always do, when he was the #1 option on offense in Seattle and Milwaukee).
add a very good man defender in Tony Allen and you get a cast that would even make a Nellie team a defensive force.

None of those guys are Bowen-esque and the only one who resembles what Bowen brought in the slightest is T. Allen. Unfortunately for them, he's no longer on the team.

Pierce is an underrated defender, but he's not a stopper. And if the Celtics have him playing that role in the playoffs, even if he does a passable job of resembling one, he likely won't have the energy to also produce the type of offense they need out of him to win. They got away with it last year because James didn't have Wade and Bosh flanking him.

The Celtics are in the same boat as the Spurs when it comes to wing defense. You may like their options better than the Spurs, but there is no T. Allen or Pietrus or someone of that ilk.

[MaNu4Tres]

None of those guys are Bowen-esque and the only one who resembles what Bowen brought in the slightest is T. Allen. Unfortunately for them, he's no longer on the team.

Pierce is an underrated defender, but he's not a stopper. And if the Celtics have him playing that role in the playoffs, even if he does a passable job of resembling one, he likely won't have the energy to also produce the type of offense they need out of him to win. They got away with it last year because James didn't have Wade and Bosh flanking him.

The Celtics are in the same boat as the Spurs when it comes to wing defense. You may like their options better than the Spurs, but there is no T. Allen or Pietrus or someone of that ilk.

Yeah what he said. /\