Reply With Quote
Thread was analyzed by the first reply, and the irony is Lakerfan pointed it out.
WTF was Parker doing attempting to double Mike Conley?
The game was put in jeopardy at the 1:06 mark with us up 4pts. Not the Shane play. Why didn't we go offense for defense while Ghill was shooting free throws for the 4 pt lead. Dice for Bonner, and Gasol would not have score with only 10 secs off the game clock.
Ask Pop that very important, yet basic coaching move when you are protecting a lead at the end of a game.
Thread was analyzed by the first reply, and the irony is Lakerfan pointed it out.
WTF was Parker doing attempting to double Mike Conley?
If they still force baseline, then why is it that Conley didn't go baseline? They haven't done it this way in years. See the 2006 series against the Mavs where they drove to the basket from the top of the key maybe a thousand times.
Wouldn't matter anyway; the Spurs don't have any shot blockers in the paint anymore. You can get by with Oberto and Horry because they play great positional and help defense. It's not a coincidence that the Spurs have failed to be successful with only one of those guys or less.
In the old Spurs' defense, RJ ensures that Conley goes baseline. Not only did he not do that, but he got himself picked by Gasol. Is a wide open three by Battier a better shot than Conley driving to the basket? Those are the questions you ask when you abandon size and defense for six seconds or less basketball, but the answer is always "we should have made more shots".
Go back and watch game 1, and see the Spurs sending two defenders at the ball, counting on their speed to close the gap when the ball moves.
By the way, I didn't think that Parker was over there to trap Conley, I thought he was rotating because RJ got picked and was chasing. The trap came from the other side and when RJ let him free it effectively removed two Spurs defenders from the play.
My comment wasn't specifically about the Battier play, but my impression of a evolving lack of commitment to their traditional defensive philosophies.
Your pathetic take that the Spurs haven't forced teams baseline as a philosophy in years is not only "obstructed", it's flat-out wrong. The Spurs forced Memphis baseline no fewer than 35 times in Game 1 and the only time Memphis was able to get into the lane without help defenders was on the first play of the game with Gasol off a screen/roll pass where Jefferson arrived late from the baseline, a couple of other forced drives into defenders trying to draw contact, plus a couple of other times with players cutting and receiving passes off screens. There were a couple of transition situations, but basically the Grizzlies did some of their scoring FROM the baseline on well-defended shots or when help was late.
You and Shoogar need to take better note of what is going on out there.
Now, then. Let's talk about missed or late help defense. THAT is a different story. The Spurs are small. They like to play small sometimes. And their team defense is often slow to rotate and comes complete with players who just aren't paying attention. Jefferson, Blair and Neal are repeat offenders and Timmy and Dice aren't as quick to respond as they used to be.
There are 2 main reasons the Spurs were 16th in the NBA in points allowed in the paint. It's not transition D. It's not defensive philosophy...a philosophy that hasn't changed other than more trapping on the ball. It's that: 1) the Spurs play sloppy and late on help defense... with spotty attentiveness by some of their players AND 2) they are small.
So YES, the Spurs' basic defensive philosophy is still to direct the dribbler to the baseline and keep the ball out of the middle. Watch the game for what is really going on.
Oh, and on the last defensive play, Jefferson actually turned his body to try to force Conley to dribble toward the sideline and baseline. Conley juked him and then took advantage of the back screen from Gasol to free himself for the dribble drive back to the FT line.
Maybe what you and Shoogar really meant was the Spurs haven't played really good defense in years. That, my friends, would be a very true statement.
One could make an argument that since Battier (.385 career) is a much better 3-pt shooter than Tony Allen (don't even bother), that George and Tony both should have kept one eye on Shane. Neither one did. Several times in Game 1, Memphis pulled a help defender away from the intended scorer, obviously by design. The Spurs will have to make adjustments for this tactic.
Things like this can be averted by being attentive and alert, as referenced in my prior post.
On the herd Bruce Bowen said it was Jeffersons fault, I trust Bruce.
Jefferson's fault for?
A. Cross-matching on Conley and forcing Parker to match with Battier?
B. Not forcing Conley baseline, no excuses?
C. Not switching with Parker after the Battier screen?
D. Not communicating?
What was Bruce referring to?
Yeah, the Spurs still force baseline. Pop still benches players if they break the rule. He's not as strict as in years past but forcing baseline is still definitely part of what the Spurs do.
Since the loss of Bowen and the drop of mobility in Duncan and Ginobili in recent years, the rule might be better described as "not allowing middle" instead of "force baseline". But it's the same principal, though the less defensively skilled personnel and perhaps a softening by Pop has massaged the rule a little bit.
As far as the Battier three-pointer, it was mostly Parker's fault but he wasn't the only one to blame. RJ jumped the screen to not allow Conley to go middle. However, Conley faked him out and then Gasol stuck his arm out to knock RJ off balance. RJ's mistake was to not clear Gasol when he jumped the screen. By being next to Gasol on the topside of Conley, RJ basically was screwed no matter what Conley would have done. RJ almost made the right move but he needed to clear Gasol by about another foot to avoid the armbar backscreen.
Parker covering middle wasn't a horrible move considering that RJ was totally out of the play at that point and the next line of defense was in the middle of the paint. What Parker didn't know is that Allen dove to the basket at the exact same moment, which took away the rotation man (Hill). If Allen would have stayed in the corner, Hill would have undoubtedly rotated to Battier since Allen can't shoot.
In hindsight, even with Allen diving, Hill should have still rotated to Battier. As it turned out, Duncan already rotated to pick up Allen. Double-teaming a diving Allen is obviously not what the weakside defense should have been doing.
That said, with the Spurs being up two points and Battier the only three-point shooter on the floor, TP shouldn't have rotated. Given the jumbled defense at that point, the Grizzlies probably still score to tie the game ... but at least they wouldn't have gotten a clear shot to steal the game.
RJ could have done better with the initial screen. Parker could have known time and score better. Hill could have made a spectacular, game-saving rotation. None of that happened and Battier hit a big shot.
It sucks but thems the breaks, I guess.
Get Game 2.
Wow, how far the mighty have fallen when paying attention and making a routine rotation becomes "spectactular".
Routine for the 1999 Spurs? Yeah, probably. This year, not so much. Although that's why the Spurs are at best considered above average defensively, now.
I'm sure you and I are in agreement that well-executed defense was never, ever boring.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
