Project Spurs: Do Spurs have frontline built to contend?

[Mel_13]

Maybe they shouldnt have signed bonner to 4yr 15million dollar contract then they wouldve had something significant left to spend. Whats the difference between him and novak? Oh yeah novak makes under a million and shoots ALMOST as well.

The money spent on Bonner could not have been spent elsewhere. The Spurs were able to sign him using his Bird rights and still use any part of the MLE and/or LLE. If they had not signed him, the exact same exceptions would have been available.

Novak is an inferior shooter, defender, and rebounder when compared to Bonner. The team would certainly be better by exchanging Bonner for a player worse than him in every conceivable way.

Just so you understand. I'm not suggesting that Bonner is great, or versatile, or anything of the kind. Only that complaining about his shortcomings is ridiculous coming from someone who suggests replacing him with a lesser player.

[portnoy1]

I wouldn't try to. Bonner is a good shooter and he's not a good rebounder. He does possess better career shooting and rebounding numbers than Bargnani at a fraction of the price and without giving up Parker.

All you're doing is whining that the Spurs have a weaker frontline than the Lakers. Whining that is compounded by the fact that you have repeatedly advocated for the acquisition of player who would not address the shortcomings that are the subject of this thread.

First of all take Bargnani out the picture, lets stay on Bonner. At 20minutes a game playing PF hurts the spurs when they play bigger teams. Or at least it will in 7game series. Rebounding and defending the paint are important in the playoffs. What you seen sunday was the same thing weve all seen in 2001playoffs vs lakers. Lakers arent just big, they are big and versatile, thats what makes them and the celtics dangerous. Spurs could get a 300lb 7-2 guy and put him next to Duncan and it would only work in certain matchups. However, you add the 7-2 center AND a 6-10 quick and athletic PF and you've immediatley become dangerous on both ends of the court. Its the combination of all 3 thats makes it work.

[portnoy1]

The money spent on Bonner could not have been spent elsewhere. The Spurs were able to sign him using his Bird rights and still use any part of the MLE and/or LLE. If they had not signed him, the exact same exceptions would have been available.

Novak is an inferior shooter, defender, and rebounder when compared to Bonner. The team would certainly be better by exchanging Bonner for a player worse than him in every conceivable way.

Just so you understand. I'm not suggesting that Bonner is great, or versatile, or anything of the kind. Only that complaining about his shortcomings is ridiculous coming from someone who suggests replacing him with a lesser player.

Fair Enough

[HarlemHo 37]

Maybe they shouldnt have signed bonner to 4yr 15million dollar contract then they wouldve had something significant left to spend. Whats the difference between him and novak? Oh yeah novak makes under a million and shoots ALMOST as well.

Novak is a back-end of the rotation scrub. If he gets minutes come playoff time, the Spurs will be on the winning or losing end of a blowout. Bonner does a much better job of spreading the floor and canning the open three. I think Bonner is better disciplined and knows the rotations better than Novak. If Novak got serious playing time, you would see the follies in his game. Your comparing a guy in Novak, who was originally signed to a 10 day contract to Bonner, who's been with Pop and the Spurs for some time now.
Signing RJ and bonner to huge contracts were huge mistakes this offseason. Unfortunately, the Spurs are stuck with a couple of defensive liabilities for the foreseeable future.

[Mel_13]

First of all take Bargnani out the picture, lets stay on Bonner. At 20minutes a game playing PF hurts the spurs when they play bigger teams. Or at least it will in 7game series. Rebounding and defending the paint are important in the playoffs. What you seen sunday was the same thing weve all seen in 2001playoffs vs lakers. Lakers arent just big, they are big and versatile, thats what makes them and the celtics dangerous. Spurs could get a 300lb 7-2 guy and put him next to Duncan and it would only work in certain matchups. However, you add the 7-2 center AND a 6-10 quick and athletic PF and you've immediatley become dangerous on both ends of the court. Its the combination of all 3 thats makes it work.

Still whining.

You'd love to stop talking about Bargnani, it's embarrassing for you in light of what you continue to say in this thread, but let's leave him out of it for now.

Tell us who fits the descriptions in the bolded section? What such players were available and at what price?

Otherwise it's just whining.

[moisaenz]

Every other contender in the west is biggest than the Spurs... The players at the front court are not that bad quality wise, not size wise.But the Spurs have many other Strengths that only tweaking the rotation with the bigs that we have , just having a bit more size when needed can compliment the other strengths in the Spurs game such as backcourt penetration and 3pt shooting. The thing is that all our backcourt players have been settling for 3 point shots when it is not needed. Gary Neal has been succesful lately because he is starting to get some rythm and if you see he has started to shoot mid range jumpers. This is something that Manu and George Hill have stopped doing. Against the Lakers they were trying to get inside and couldn't because of the Lakers size, we weren't hitting contested 3 pointers but rj,hill and manu did not even attempt to dribble into the key to get a better shot.If they did it would have made the game easier for our frontcourt.

We can get bigger size by playing Blair at the three.He is not a good 3pt shooter but he would help defensively and with rebounding.
Mcdyess and DUncan together can be enough size to help with parker's and Ginobili's penetration game.

[JR3]

We will find out.. it is a concern, but I'm not going to tell you we can't win a championship, cuz we can! Blair plays bigger than he is, and Tim Duncan has size! His minutes will go up in the playoffs too. We can score this year with anyone- different from years back where we HAD to stop people at the rim, or else our offense didn't have a fighting chance.

[tdunk21]

Every other contender in the west is biggest than the Spurs... The players at the front court are not that bad quality wise, not size wise.But the Spurs have many other Strengths that only tweaking the rotation with the bigs that we have , just having a bit more size when needed can compliment the other strengths in the Spurs game such as backcourt penetration and 3pt shooting. The thing is that all our backcourt players have been settling for 3 point shots when it is not needed. Gary Neal has been succesful lately because he is starting to get some rythm and if you see he has started to shoot mid range jumpers. This is something that Manu and George Hill have stopped doing. Against the Lakers they were trying to get inside and couldn't because of the Lakers size, we weren't hitting contested 3 pointers but rj,hill and manu did not even attempt to dribble into the key to get a better shot.If they did it would have made the game easier for our frontcourt.

We can get bigger size by playing Blair at the three.He is not a good 3pt shooter but he would help defensively and with rebounding.
Mcdyess and DUncan together can be enough size to help with parker's and Ginobili's penetration game.

that kills the purpose of pop's idea of stretching the floor so tony and manu can do their thing...that way blair will be left open and neglected since he cant shoot mid range jumpers....

[rmt]

Splitter should have been played every available minute he wasn't injured. Dice should not have played against the weaker teams and Duncan given more rest against them. The only solution to the height problem has been sitting on the bench all season. There was no way to for the Spurs to get a better big than Splitter (without giving up a significant piece).

[wildbill2u]

If you put a big like Bonner out on the perimeter, he's not going to rebound offensively.

Defensively, he gets taken out on the perimeter by athletic bigs and then doesn't have the footspeed to stay with them if they drive. He isn't a good rebounder on defense either because he isn't athletic, but he does give you what he has. Not a quitter.

He is what he is--a good spot up three point shooter who tries hard on defense.

[Hoops Czar]

If you put a big like Bonner out on the perimeter, he's not going to rebound offensively.

Defensively, he gets taken out on the perimeter by athletic bigs and then doesn't have the footspeed to stay with them if they drive. He isn't a good rebounder on defense either because he isn't athletic, but he does give you what he has. Not a quitter.

He is what he is--a good spot up three point shooter who tries hard on defense.

The Spurs can't win with good intentions.

[GrandeDavid]

Tell that to the many failed mavs teams of the past decade.

Ouch! Oh so true.

[GrandeDavid]

Splitter should have been played every available minute he wasn't injured. Dice should not have played against the weaker teams and Duncan given more rest against them. The only solution to the height problem has been sitting on the bench all season. There was no way to for the Spurs to get a better big than Splitter (without giving up a significant piece).

It looks like Splitter will be getting some chances now. I hope he improves and can secure a spot in the rotation by the playoffs.

[DesignatedT]

I don't think that Bonner should be the first big off the bench once the playoffs start but I do think he can be effective and used when we need to change it up, spread the floor or are struggling offensively. Obviously the Lakers pose the biggest matchup problems down low but at this point it's not even a guarantee we meet them in the playoffs tbh. Dallas would be a better matchup for our front line imo but that's not to say they don't pose there own problems for us.

[jjktkk]

Although the Spurs will struggle against the bigger front lines in the playoffs, Duncan and Dyess will turn it up a notch in the playoffs, which hopefully negates, or lessens any size advantage opponents will have against the Spurs.

[said7]

Do some of you bags even watch the games? The spurs have been toying with most of their compe ion. Playoffs will be a different story. The depth of our bench will make all the difference.
and...
What more do some of you want out of bonner? Hes leading the league in 3s and has won us several games. Any team in the league would gladly take him, and all you lot can do it moan.

[Hoops Czar]

Do some of you bags even watch the games? The spurs have been toying with most of their compe ion. Playoffs will be a different story. The depth of our bench will make all the difference.
and...
What more do some of you want out of bonner? Hes leading the league in 3s and has won us several games. Any team in the league would gladly take him, and all you lot can do it moan.

Interesting philosophy..... Now what makes you think teams weren't toying with the Spurs.

[E-RockWill]

Im not an expert....

Breaking news....

[Man In Black]

They will battle and then we'll see what happens at the end. While people start talking about length, I point out that that length is countered by physicality and positioning. We need the DeJuan that rips off Thabeet's arms. That's totally needed when playing against the LAL. I've said that players like Wes Unseld dominated despite being 6'7" and Houston without Yao, did pretty well in the series with just Scola and 6'6" Chuck Hayes. One needs to dominate and control the principle of verticality. If you can get into ones legs, then they'll have a tough time jumping.

Makes me wonder what kind of game 6'10" Jumping Bean Ryan Richards brings to the table.

[Fpoonsie]

I’m hear to ask the question: How does the Spurs' frontline compare with the other playoff teams?

[cringe]

[tlongII]

Absolutely not. The 2nd round is about the best that the Spurs can hope for.

[Strategic]

I'm trying to get the root of this thread. Pop has started the same front line every game this year. Is it because

1. He believes this three can excel against any other starting front line in the league?
2. He believes starting the same front line over the season will allow the team to win the most games?
3. He believes that he's starting his best players?
4. He's lost it?

The Spurs have 4 front liners 6'10" or taller, plus McDyess and Blair.

[jason1301]

Hard to argue that Spurs > Lakers during these playoffs. Assuming both team stay healthy and rested, Lakers have the best player and the better front line. I think that makes them the favorite.

As the article states, if one of their bigs is in foul trouble or is having a night off we can beat them. My hope is to find a way to do just that or run out of gas by the time we face them. Say they play Dallas 7 times in rd2, and we have a much easier road to the final.

[Hoops Czar]

Hard to argue that Spurs > Lakers during these playoffs. Assuming both team stay healthy and rested, Lakers have the best player and the better front line. I think that makes them the favorite.

As the article states, if one of their bigs is in foul trouble or is having a night off we can beat them. My hope is to find a way to do just that or run out of gas by the time we face them. Say they play Dallas 7 times in rd2, and we have a much easier road to the final.

That doesn't make any sense.

[TD 21]

They absolutely do. Sunday was a law of averages game. They had won 22 straight at home, were coming off an insane offensive performance against an elite team and had beaten the Lakers 3 straight times. Unfortunately, they were due for that type of game and it just so happened to come at the hands of the Lakers in a nationally televised game. So the Lakers ass kissers/cheerleaders can use it as so-called "proof that the Spurs can't beat the Lakers in a series" (funny how the Spurs beating them 3 straight before that was meaningless).

I have no idea why people continue to refer to Blair as the Spurs center. You are what you guard and he exclusively guards power forwards. Duncan is the Spurs center and has been since '08. However, since the Spurs are physically over matched against the Lakers, what they should do is cross match. Duncan can basically physically negate Gasol. He's smaller, but still very long in his own right and he's stronger. That would leave Blair to guard Bynum. Theoretically, he wouldn't struggle any more with Bynum than he would Gasol and he actually might have a better chance at adequately defending him, since Bynum isn't as skilled as Gasol and is more reliant on sheer power.

It's going to take all five bigs playing a part to get through the Lakers. Even if Splitter is the fifth big and playing limited minutes, they're going to need him to take a turn guarding either Bynum or (preferably) Gasol. But Pop's should also be willing to get creative. Artest is extremely limited offensively, which means Bonner should guard him in stretches. Some will say Blair, but that takes him out of prime rebounding position and the Spurs can't afford to do that with one of their two best rebounders, since they're already at a disadvantage on the glass. Bonner should suffice. If the Lakers want to attempt to exploit it and isolate Artest, let them. That only takes the ball out of their four best players hands. This match-up would allow the Spurs to play bigger and find more minutes for Splitter.