I am making a general statement, not focusing on one game. There are plenty of people on this board who whenever Tim has a bad game, they are all over him and i feel it is really unfair that is what i'm saying. By the way we lose the game nomatter if Ginobli and parker are taking all the shots, we could not stop Arenas for our lives they dropped 110 on us the D was bad that is why we lost.
ing A, no one is jumping on Tim. We're saying that on the nights he has a bad game, we should be going elsewhere for scoring.i agree with you 100% anyone who jumps on Tim for a once in a blue moon bad game is just not being a real fan. When you look at Tim Duncan what does he have left to prove in this game
Damn some of you are dense.
Well, in 03, Tim was it, since then however, Tony and especially Manu have asserted themselves as has Bowen and Horry as factors when it comes to scoring. It's not so far fetched to look elsewhere for our offense, they did it last year when they let Manu run the offense in late stages of games against Seattle, Phoenix, and Detroit. I don't see why they couldn't have done it last night. Although as a pt. guard I would have tried to get my big man involved and try to get him some easy looks, something Van Exel did, but he still missed. It was just one of those days that TD has a lot of during the early part of the year but seldom has them once the all-star break comes along.
About the refs, every ref has a different approach to how they call a game, their called the best in the business but too many refs see the game differently, some guys allow the big men to beat each other up, others call every little thing and others like Salvatore listens to the squeaky wheel and gives them the calls. When they allowed the PIstons to mug and hack at Tim the Pistons won, when they got called for it, Tim dominated them. And in reality Tim should dominate every night except for the occasional night like last night, but in some games the refs will let defenders abuse and harass Tim to no end, it's strange that in the first 4 games we got outshot at the FT line by 3 of the 4 teams we played, that shouldn't happen because of the way this team plays, it's inside out game and the penetrations by Manu and Tony you would think the Spurs would lead the league in FT shooting. But I don't think that's the case.
Anyway, I think I understood the article, but with Buck you never know.
I happen to think that Doug Collins is a good commentator.
He said exactly the same thing that I wrote. He stated that regardless of how bad a game has gone for your best player, you still put the ball in his hands at the end of the game. I would be willing to be that 90 percent of coaches would agree with.
There are nights where Tim struggled through the game, shooting a low percentage, but still won the game for us at the end. Game 7 of the Finals was one example. Game 6 of the Sonics series was another.
Ginobili and Parker are more effective because of the pressure that Tim Duncan puts on the other team's defense. If you stop going to Duncan, playing differently than your team has for of say the last 8 years and decide to shoot a perimeter jumpshot with 22 second left on the shot clock, the Spurs are probably going to lose. The other team will stop penetration and you will be shooting a contested perimeter shot every time.
If we had followed this philosophy of abandoning Duncan due to a poor shooting night for most of the game, we probably would not be world champs.
We could also follow this to its logical conclusion and not going to Tim the next game either. What is the dividing line where you can still go to Tim in the post (and have him kick it out) ? What exact shooting percentage is too low for the Spurs to keep going to Tim?
In any event, it appears that Pop shares this philosophy.
BTW, Phil Jackson could have gone to Tony Kukoc or Scottie Pippen.
He still went to MJ to win the game even if he had a rare bad shooting night.
Isiah did this even when Jordan was 40 when he was coaching the all star game. Jordan, in overtime made the shot and it would (and should) have been the game winner as it put the East up by 2 with a second on the clock. Only a foul on Kobe taking a last second 3 point shot prevented it from being the game winner. It appears Zeke holds to this philosophy as well.
Last edited by themanurules; 11-13-2005 at 11:24 PM.
Not trying to diss Harvey or anything, but meaningless article/column.
Most people should know that Timmy has a bad game every 30 and isn't one of Duncans' flaws.
What suprises me is that Timmy starts slow and finishes strong, but right now he's playing pretty well compared to other starting years.
Kobe had a bad night against the Sixers I think he deserves an article like this aswell.
So because some commentator who wasn't even good enough to hang onto a coaching job in the league says something equally as stupid as what you are, your point somehow gains validity?I happen to think that Doug Collins is a good commentator.
He said exactly the same thing that I wrote. He stated that regardless of how bad a game has gone for your best player, you still put the ball in his hands at the end of the game. I would be willing to be that 90 percent of coaches would agree with.
Damn, I can't believe people are so ing illogical about this.
Tim Duncan: 3-18.
Manu and Tony: 18-32.
Why the do you feel the need to force feed a guy working on a 3 for 18 night when you've got two guys who are scorching the nets at 60%?
What the did we pay Manu and Tony for, if all you want them to do is stay out of Tim's way, no matter how bad a shooting night he's having?
Is anything registering with you?
Sorry, we won game 7 because of Robert ing Horry. Remember him? Giving the ball to him to shoot when Tim struggled (hey wait a minute, that idea sounds familiar...), as well as Manu (23 points on 8-13 shooting - sound familiar?) kept the Spurs in it to the point that Duncan could finish it out.There are nights where Tim struggled through the game, shooting a low percentage, but still won the game for us at the end. Game 7 of the Finals was one example.
Here's an excerpt from the Game 7 recap:
Duncan scored when the Spurs needed it, then turned his teammates into stars...
Thriving off Duncan were Manu Ginobili, who scored 11 of his 23 points in the last 10 minutes, and wily veteran Robert Horry, who scored 15 points off the bench and collected his sixth championship.You mean like when Horry went ape and won us a game at the Palace that we would have otherwise lost? Great point, what were we thinking abandoning Duncan?If we had followed this philosophy of abandoning Duncan due to a poor shooting night for most of the game, we probably would not be world champs.
So why is it such a travesty to suggest the same on nights when Manu and Tony are feeling it and Duncan's not?
Oh yeah, because some sorry ass talking head agrees with you. Oh, and BTW, we lost last night by 15.
Take 10 of Duncan's misses, take Manu and Tony's shooting percentages last night over those 10 shots (that would come out to 6 buckets), and you've got at worst a 3 point game at the end of things, with a chance for your savior Timmy to win it at the end.
But hey, losing by 15 is cool, as long as Tim gets to shoot 20 times even if he only makes 3, all because Doug "Eminem" Collins said so.
No, you are absolutely right. Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team.So because some commentator who wasn't even good enough to hang onto a coaching job in the league says something equally as stupid as what you are, your point somehow gains validity?
I apologize. And you have how much experience as a NBA coach? What do you think? Perhaps just a thought for you to consider there is a reason why you were never ever a coach in the NBA and Collins was, Phil Jackson is, Zeke was and Pop is.
Damn, I can't believe people are so ing illogical about this.
This is logical? What??? Tell me, if you are so logical (as you claim) what's the dividing line? Is it 50%? Is it 40 %? What is it? Perhaps you are not quite as logically consistent as you might think..
Tim Duncan: 3-18.
Manu and Tony: 18-32.
Why the do you feel the need to force feed a guy working on a 3 for 18 night when you've got two guys who are scorching the nets at 60%?
What the did we pay Manu and Tony for, if all you want them to do is stay out of Tim's way, no matter how bad a shooting night he's having?
You clearly did not understand what I wrote.
Let's try again. Run our normal offense which starts with the ball going in to Tim. He attracts attention and then kicks it out to an open shooter. He also opens up the lane for people to get to the rim.
Got that. Let's not abandon our normal offense because our best player has had an off night shooting. Inside out basketball.
Is anything registering with you?
Sorry, we won game 7 because of Robert ing Horry. Remember him? Giving the ball to him to shoot when Tim struggled (hey wait a minute, that idea sounds familiar...), as well as Manu (23 points on 8-13 shooting - sound familiar?) kept the Spurs in it to the point that Duncan could finish it out.
You seem very confused. Manu and Tony both said exactly the opposite as you did. As the team was falling further and further out of the game, Tim carried the team. Hubie saw that. Oh, I forgot, the only person whose opinion has any merit is yours. Ginobili kept us going by cheerleading on the bench or did you forget the 2 fouls? Better yet, did you even watch the game?
Here's an excerpt from the Game 7 recap:
What? Did you not watch the game? Are you making this up as you go along?
Tim scored 18 points in the last 18 minutes. He shot about 50 % from the field, but he also forced them to double team him. He, then, got 2 important assists when he kicked the ball out to Bowen and Ginobili. He would have had a third, but Horry missed a wide open 3. Tim led the team in scoring, Ginobili was second. Horry did not win game 7 for us at all. Either you did not watch the game or you are confusing it with another game.
You mean like when Horry went ape and won us a game at the Palace that we would have otherwise lost? Great point, what were we thinking abandoning Duncan?
Ah, I see. It was all Horry. It's amazing that you think that Tim had nothing to do with the Spurs winning game 5 despite the fact that Tim had 26 points and 19 rebounds. You see, following your theory, after games 3 and game 4, Pop would have said, " Forget Duncan. Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team like Dallas or Phoenix. " How exactly did he get 24 shots off when we wrote off Duncan? We continued to go to Tim. We did not stop feeding the post. Who got more points, Tim or Robert? Who got more rebounds?
Then, again, since you are so logical, I want to know why logically you are not applying this to the next game as well? Special pleading? Kind of arbitrary.
So why is it such a travesty to suggest the same on nights when Manu and Tony are feeling it and Duncan's not?
Oh yeah, because some sorry ass talking head agrees with you. Oh, and BTW, we lost last night by 15. Right which is unusual. Every once in a while your star will not pull it out for you. Most of the time he will.
Take 10 of Duncan's misses, take Manu and Tony's shooting percentages last night over those 10 shots (that would come out to 6 buckets), and you've got at worst a 3 point game at the end of things, with a chance for your savior Timmy to win it at the end.
You seem to have forgotten about causal relationships. Tim opens up things for everybody else. However, if you tell Tim not to take any shots because you have no confidence in him based upon his shooting this night, then the other team stops responding to Tim.
But hey, losing by 15 is cool, as long as Tim gets to shoot 20 times even if he only makes 3, all because Doug "Eminem" Collins said so.
You don't have any coaching philosophy at all, do you? Just fly by the seat of your pants. While some people might find that a great idea, others might have problems with this.
Of course, you still have not told me what shooting percentage is too low for us to go to Tim. Then, you have to decide if you are going to tell Tim that he can not take any shots at all. Or is a 6 foot shot okay, but a 6 foot 1 inch shot is too far away because he was shooting 47 %. On the other hand, he could shoot the 6 foot 1 in shot if he were shooting 47.5 %.
Excuse me, but if I were you, I would stick to what I know. Logic is not one of those things.
Try again.
Pop is going to run his normal offense and not try to become Dallas simply because you say so. The man has won 3 les, but again nobody's opinion except yours matters.
You've been stomped.
my man Tim could not hit the broad side of a barn through 2 1/2 qtrs of game 7 of the finals. If we had gone away from him then we would have lost it, and people would be saying tim's legacy is in the gutter.
Show me where I said that. You can't. Last time I checked Manu and Tony were not just shooting jumpers the other night.Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team.
I need a "coaching philosophy" to be able to argue 60% shooting > 16%? WTF?You don't have any coaching philosophy at all, do you?Do you ride the short bus to school?
Are you saying it's illogical to go with the guys shooting 60% over the one shooting 16% because you as a poster and Eminem Collins like riding Tim's nuts? Because where I'm sitting from, that's all I see.Excuse me, but if I were you, I would stick to what I know. Logic is not one of those things.
Try again.
Pop is going to run his normal offense and not try to become Dallas simply because you say so. The man has won 3 les, but again nobody's opinion except yours matters.
Pop's "normal offense", whatever the it is you're referring to when you said that, had allowed Parker and Manu to score 51 on 60% shooting. You're right, we should have stopped doing that
Call me when you get done whacking off to your Eminem Collins poster and graduating laude with that math degree that led you to believe 60% > 16%You've been stomped.
You do realize that we did "go away from him", right? Manu's 23 and Horry's 15 are obviously figments of my imagination from that gamemy man Tim could not hit the broad side of a barn through 2 1/2 qtrs of game 7 of the finals. If we had gone away from him then we would have lost it,
Look, I know you two want Tim Duncan to be the father of your children, but come on and enjoy us in the reality where 16% < 60%.
No one is saying scrap the offense. No one is saying bench Tim. No one is saying Tim's legacy is for having an off night in November. They are saying that on a night when Tim couldn't hit the broadside of a ing barn, and he has two teammates making a combined 15 million this year who were shooting 60%, it's okay to give them the rock
Is anything getting through to you two dunces? I typed that last paragraph really slow for you.
Sonics last year.
Wizards this year.
A.D.?
"Duncan's One Flaw"? Not even close! His one flaw is when he puts the ball on the floor. If you can't see that, you haven't been watching. Duncan is greater than anyone thinks but he often loses the ball when he puts it on the floor.
It's more important to be consistent in your team's philosophy and approach to the game even if it means losing a road game in November. Establishing an iden y and maintaining consistently is more important than winning individual games.
This is Tim Duncan's team. Tim Duncan gets touches even on a bad shooting night. The team must have the discipline to stick with the game plan. If Tim isn't getting touches and drawing in the defense, the other players are going to have a very hard time getting open jump shots anyway. If opposing big men aren't occupied with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are going to have a tough time with their penetration.
This is not rocket science except to Aggies.
If the Spurs bailed on Tim whenever he started shooting poorly, Game 7 of the Finals last year probably would have ended differently and the Pistons would have a new set of cheesy belts.
Discipline pays off.
You're confusing "touches" and "shots." I might be mis-stating AHF's argument (although I don't think I am), but Duncan should still be getting those touches, but not taking those shots. The team shouldn't completely change their offense since this would be really impractical to do, as you said. When the pass goes from the point to the corner, the corner player still looks to pass into Duncan in the post. The only difference is that Pop should tell Timmy "don't take any more shots tonight because you're obviously going to miss them. Pass the ball out of the double team after you make a move, and then maybe go run the pick-and-roll with Tony." Duncan in fact does this all the time when a guard is having a great game, as he did in Game 7 against Detroit and Game 6 against New Jersey, to name a couple of notable examples. There are just some games when Duncan should be doing this by isn't. @ Washington was a good example of Duncan going away from what has worked a thousand times in the past. As much as I hate to say this, Pop should be doing what Phil Jackson does all the time: find the player with the hot hand and run the same play for them over and over and over and over again. When Pop's "equal opportunity" offense isn't really working because Duncan can't hit , he should be calling special situation plays for Tony and Manu. Almost all of the these plays involve Duncan getting touches or being one pass away from the ball (hence drawing the double-team), but they don't involve Duncan taking a ton of shots he's going to miss.
"bailed on Tim"
Hardly what anybody's saying. I'm saying play him for his defense, his RBs, his put back scoring, but stop expecting him to try to shoot as the first option when he's totally ineffective and wasting possessions.
WTF's wrong going with getting Tim to help the hot-hands keep scoring, like Tony, Many, Bruce, Nick vs Wiz, when Tim isn't scoring for ? If the defense is keyed on Tim effectively, why TF keep running Tim into a brick wall?
As long as we score, who cares who scores?
The discipline vs Wiz seemd to be: no matter how badly Tim is not scoring, we keep forcing him to shoot, while the hot hands stand around. totally stupid.
Touches <> shots.Tim Duncan gets touches even on a bad shooting night.
This isn't rocket science to Aggies.
Boutons and AHF agree.
Run for the hills. The World ends tomorrow . . .
By the way, I agree with them. This one is on Pop.
i missed that Wizards vs Spurs game.
but after reading some posts i think nobody got the real answer WHY Tim suddenly shot 3-18 from an almost 52%FG in the last 6 spurs games.
it's because he was sleeping
check this out.
P.S. get rid of the fro, Tim!
Game 7. Finals.Touches <> shots.
This isn't rocket science to Aggies.
Should Duncan have stopped shooting that night too?
Owned. Good night.
Go back to animal husbandry, Agro.
can you not understand what AHF means? when you go away from tim and make some j/s it opens up the middle for him again. you don't go away from him the whole game you just go inside out until the paint is open for td and even tp and manu. you can't clog the lane against the spurs when they are hitting jump shots. what he is saying is to change for a bit to get things going, then change back if the middle is open again. what is bad is when he is having a bad shooting night and continues to only try and get his shot. no one is talking about radically changing the offense.
OK, I dug up my RSCI 101 lecture notes last night (F you Copy Corner). In Lecture 5, slide 7 the professor clearly stated that "...when you have the world's best player on your team, you shall pass him the ball often".
Tim took 18 shots, not 38. How is that only trying to get his shot? How many of those were on attempted putbacks?what is bad is when he is having a bad shooting night and continues to only try and get his shot. no one is talking about radically changing the offense.
How's he supposed to know he's going to miss all night long from point-blank range? This is some of the lamest 20-20 hindsight I've ever seen.
How many times in his career has Tim started like 2-10, but then dominated the rest of the game?
Y'all basically are saying that if Tim goes through a cold stretch, he needs to lose his aggression and defer to everybody else. That's what you're saying. You want the best player in the league to turn into the Caribbean Rasho.
So it's ridiculous to want depth for a swingman rotation full of aging vets and its ridiculous to go to TD when you're trying to win a game? um, ok.
Any other gems, 'Hoopsfan'?
Hmm, my memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall Horry coming off the bench for 15, Manu dropping in 23, and because of those two efforts we were close enough at the end of the game for Tim to do his thing. Owned. Good nightGame 7. Finals.
Should Duncan have stopped shooting that night too?
Owned. Good night.
Go back to animal husbandry, Agro.
Contrast this to the Wizards game where Tim kept shooting and we ended up down 15 points at the end, it's a little hard for TD to do his thing.
But I guess I shouldn't expect much from a guy who thinks that Malik Rose, who can't get 10 minutes a game on a 1-6 NY Knicks club, is the greatest bench player of all time and a first ballot HOFer.
No Cornbread, you have real depth so you don't have to count on a Melvin Sanders giving you heavy minutes.
As for Rose, nice attempt at the straw man.
And where do you suppose we get this depth at? You've been whining like you're on the rag for the last two months about the 14th and 15th guys at the end of the bench (like Sanders).
Oh wait, if we only had Devin Brown, his 4.0 PPG, and his bad back this would all be better.
Straw man? I was pointing out your infatuation with scrub players. I don't think you're happy unless you can root for a team full of Rudys.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
