why do spurs have such pathetic offense???

[Spur-Addict]

why do spurs have such pathetic fans???

Contrary to popular belief, all fans are not created equal. Nor do all fans have the same potential to fill the true fan capacity. Yes, it's true, and it saddens me to say it.

It's no indication to anyone who has posted in this thread, it's just in general. Happy holidays everybody.

[Fabbs]

In their last eight loss, the Spurs are averaging 80.6 points per game.

That's pathetic.

[benefactor]

In their last ten wins, the Spurs are averaging 108.6 points per game.

In their last eight loss, the Spurs are averaging 80.6 points per game.

A "pathetic offense" isn't really the problem. Those numbers point to a lack of consistency.

Expanding on this is the assimilation of the new players with the stars. Everyone saw how well Mason and Hill were playing and just expected them mix together beautifully with the stars right off the bat...which is and unrealistic assumption. They have only played 11 games total together and that is not nearly enough in this system with the big three.

Kori made a good point on Manu and TP historically not trusting their teammates as much when the offense gets stagnant. This is especially true with Manu because he has always been the fire starter when our energy level goes down. Hill and Mason need to make convincing arguments that they can depended on to step up and be aggressive scoring the ball so they can get that pass from TP or Manu instead of watching them force the issue when its obvious they are struggling. This is going to take some recognition and action from both sides...and its something that takes TIME.

There is nothing wrong with this team offensively. Consistency, rhythm and an established comfort level with all our new and old players is the problem.

[z0sa]

Mason Jr needs 70% of Finley's shots.

Problem solved.

[rascal]

Your offense has to be geared toward your personnel. The Spurs run pick n roll, isos up top, Timmy in the block, and penetration (drive all the way or kick to 3 point shooters) because it suits who they have on the floor. They can't run a 7 seconds or less offense, because they don't have the horses for it.

When their offense gets stagnant is when Tony and Manu don't trust their teammates and go iso too much, when there's no movement in the motion offense, or when the 3 point shooters go dry.

But when it comes down to it, this offense is pretty good for the personnel that they have.

Then get a couple of horses that can finish in transition. Thats a source of easy points when the perimeter game is not clicking.

Thats one problem. The spurs don't get enough easy transistion points off long rebounds and turnovers.

The spurs don't target athletes who can finish to fill out their bench. Gist would have been a good transistion finisher and they send him off.

[rascal]

In their last ten wins, the Spurs are averaging 108.6 points per game.

In their last eight loss, the Spurs are averaging 80.6 points per game.

A "pathetic offense" isn't really the problem. Those numbers point to a lack of consistency.

Thats a big disparity and much of it has to do with the level of compe ion. The spurs don't play as well offensively against the better teams in the league.

[024]

spurs offense is very predictable. i can pretty much predict what's going to happen when the spurs run an offensive set. it's either drive and kick, drive and layup, pass it to duncan and duncan will proceed to shoot or pass, or pick and roll. nothing exactly wrong with it since this is an offense that has won championships but it has become very predictable that defenders can guess the players' actions. i think the reason behind this is the lack of a true point guard. parker needs to run popovich's offensive sets because he never really developed true point guard passing ability. again, nothing wrong with having a scoring point guard, it just limits the amount of creativity.

[Fabbs]

Your offense has to be geared toward your personnel. The Spurs run pick n roll, isos up top, Timmy in the block, and penetration (drive all the way or kick to 3 point shooters) because it suits who they have on the floor. They can't run a 7 seconds or less offense, because they don't have the horses for it.

When their offense gets stagnant is when Tony and Manu don't trust their teammates and go iso too much, when there's no movement in the motion offense, or when the 3 point shooters go dry.

But when it comes down to it, this offense is pretty good for the personnel that they have.

Mason, Hill, Ime, Bruce on timely occasions, heck even Finley could take it to the rack with regularity if the coach would tell them to do so. The coach most obviously doesn't, the Stand n Veg we so often employ has been caught up to by the league, esp since we've gone "small".


We have the personnell, we don't have an offensive coach.

[The Truth #6]

Our system is effective once it's learned, but I wouldn't say it's "user friendly". We've had scoring droughts since Pop has been a coach. I think it's a byproduct, for whatever reason, of the system.

Also, Pop is much more of a defensive coach. It seems like Pop considers offense as being somewhat random and at times uncontrollable, whereas defense is something that is exact and able to be managed.