Ugh. I know.
If that happens a few times it's understandable but at this stage I have to say that the Spurs' defense is the common factor here.
I'm not asking for 2003 level defense, but I really don't see this team winning it all if something doesn't change on that front.
This Spurs team is kinda like the Kings of early 2000's, somewhat. The offense is very good, and decent defensively (especially as a team). If only those Kings weren't so mentally challenged and the zebras intervention + Horry's heroic, i think it would have been the first precedence of good offense + decent defense winning the championship.
1 First of all. i really don't think they have any tool to become an elite defensive team like what they used to be. But most importantly, the spurs do not need to be an elite defensive team this season it is because they got so many weapons on offense which are better than most of the team in NBA.
2 Yes I do agree with Pop 's decision because the fact is that we did win a lot of games.
3 Hypothetically, can not. but for this short season. yes we can.
4 Certainly.
PS:timvp, actually our defense is not that average compare to most of the teams
The 2007-2008 playoffs against the Lakers changed Pop's mind, I thought.
I would say Manu, Tim, Tony, Jackson, Diaw, Kawhi, and Splitter are all "old bulls", so the Spurs should be good on that front. Great joke.
Every time you get bull , whiny posts like that, you should take off for half an hour to do whatever and ponder how much you've spoiled ST over the years.
dp
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
No. As others have said the personnel it took to be that type of team is long gone and irreplaceable. However, the upgrades on the perimeter and being able to keep a 7 footer on the floor at all times should allow them to at least be a decent defensive team. The player that was traded was replaced with a player that is much better defensively. The player that was drafted is a big contributor and he's the best defender on the team. Splitter...when in shape and in rhythm has show to be a good paint defender. Diaw has shown himself to be an above average defender. They all seem to do it willingly because being on the Spurs still means defense and they know that.
2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?
To a degree, yes...for two reasons. First, they cannot just rely on the big three to make all the plays on offense as we have seen in years past. Parker is the only one of them left that can maintain an elite offensive level throughout the whole game while still playing big minutes. They need somewhat significant contributions from several of the role players to get wins...which brings me to the second reason. The Spurs probably have the best set of offensive role players that they have ever had in the Duncan era. All these role players have various strengths that can be utilized and they can cause mismatches with other teams role players, as most teams in the league cannot roll out a bench as good as the Spurs. Knowing these role players contributions will be needed in order to win, I'm sure Pop has had to spend a lot more time working with them on the offensive end to get the most out of them. Offensive chemistry takes a lot more time to develop than defensive chemistry...and the Spurs have a lot of new(and offensively effective) players to integrate.
3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?
I think so...and especially this season. I know for sure a team like that can win the West as there are no real dominant defensive teams in the West. Tbh, I don't see a team in the league this season that is a clear cut favorite to win it all. Each are flawed in their own ways and those flaws could cost that team in the playoffs. The Spurs are no different.
4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?
Offense first? No. They need to continue to play lineups that can be effective on both ends. The good thing is that they have the personnel to do that. As I said above, the Spurs have acquired rotation level role players that are willing defenders and good enough at it to get the job done. So while offense may be stressed more, there is no excuse to not play defense as players like Leonard, Jackson, Green, Splitter and Diaw all seem to play defense without being harped on by Pop.
All in all Spurs defense is going to come down to two things...the recognizing of mismatches and the ability to come up with stops when necessary. Last night Bonner didn't play because he was a mismatch. This type of mentality needs to carry over into the playoffs. This team has also shown the ability to shut down teams in stretches and then play well enough offensively and defensively after that to hold onto leads and get wins. Producing offense and defense at key times will be the key element to winning it all this season.
I was just thinking the other day that Pop stressing less importance on Defence might be an actual election after all. Reading Tim's quote might support it, don't you think?
I think that to be an elite defense team you need bigs who can guard. How many of those are available? Or not even 'available', let's say per team. How many teams have any of those?
After all, it's Pop the guy has been around fo years, he gotta know what's he's doing. Let's trust him.
How good was Dallas D last year?
They say this year the thing is wide open for anybody who takes the championship. So there's nobody out there that's a lock, I guess that's why Pop didnt go crazy for becoming a good D team
Robinson + Bowen >>>>> Diaw + Leonard + Jack >>>>>>> Bonner + Bogans.
The Spurs won't be able to play 48 minutes of shut down defense like they used to, but they at least have the players to do it on occasion now. This defense is better than it's been since the last championship.
After 2007, Pop seemed to make a change where he didn't want the Spurs to make any "risky" plays on defense, which meant they never forced steals and never ran and got easy baskets. The last two years they've done more of both and their offensive numbers have gone through the roof.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 03-29-2012 at 08:55 AM.
In 24 games with a five-point spread or less under five minutes, three Spurs have a defensive efficiency under 90. That's a quite impressive stat, tbh.
If Spurs can keep up that level by playoffs time (decreasing Blair's playing time and rising a bit the overall intensity), I like our chances to win it all.
If OV and Harlem are positive, then so am i about the spurs chances.
tbh, point differential is a greater predictor of championship success than great defense. while teams with great defense / average offense have a slightly better chance of winning a le than teams with average defense / great offense (i read an article on this a long time ago on bb reference), our point differential - in the most compe ive conference and division - shows that we can hold some hopes of winning the le this year.
let's hope everyone is healthy for the end run.
tbh, point differential is a greater predictor of championship success than great defense. while teams with great defense / average offense have a slightly better chance of winning a le than teams with average defense / great offense (i read an article on this a long time ago on bb reference), our point differential - in the most compe ive conference and division - shows that we can hold some hopes of winning the le this year.
let's hope everyone is healthy for the end run.
wth? double post?
That, my friend, is good work.
Originally Posted by timvp
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?
3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?
4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?
Answers:
1. More then ever! If they aren't, today, it is because of Pop. This team is more athletic, has better scorers, is more focused, is deeper, and believes in Pop more than any other previous teams we've had in the past. IMHO, Pop realizes there are 7 footers in the league who shoot, dribble, and score like guards (think Love, Durant, Lebron, etc.). Unless your defensive-minded team is all 7 footers as well, we simply have to outscore them.
2. Absolutely! And it is paying off.
3. Probably not. We have to raise our game on all fronts. Here, because of Pop's theory and philosophy of "winning basketball" (i.e., resting players, etc.) we have an advantage over all other less-than-eperienced coaches. Pop prepares for the playoffs in November.
4. I think we are getting there. All of us see continuing "flashes" of a championship team with each game the Spurs play. Others are seeing it, too. We can downplay Shaq, Barkeley, and others all we want, but they see a formidable team in this year's version of the S.A., Spurs.
They 99, 03 and 05 Spurs teams were able to force all the teams they played to play at their pace and style.
However, in 07 the Suns imposed their offensive style, and the Spurs were unable to stop them. The Spurs had to outscore the Suns also Horry's cheap shot on Nash helped to get Amare and Diaw suspended for one game. Should have the Suns advanced that year, they would have won that championship.
Another example are the 2010 Lakers. Once again, the Suns were able to impose their style, but the Lakers had elite offense too and were able to outscore them. In the finals, the C's imposed their defensive style but the Lakers were great defensive team too. When Perkins went down in game 6 the C's were unable to make adjustments on the fly and for game 7 the Lakers had slightly better defense.
So, I think that the Spurs need to play both elite offense and elite defense to be able to win it all. But depends on the playoffs and finals matchups, perhaps it could be done with offense only. However, the Heat and the Bulls are great defensive teams.
Our new Paradigm--Defense in Depth
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
Yes. While we don't have the individual player that can be considered a consistent "lock down defender" the defense is rounding out nicely. Remember our ranking is based on the entire season and with all the injuries and new players the development of a defensive personality of this team is still in transition--and getting better as new players have been added, Kwahi improves almost game-to-game.
2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?
Yes. On one hand he's had to face the fact that the league has changed. Rules and refs calls are harder on the defense because the league wants the excitement value of offensive basketball.
Secondly, the team personnel has changed with Tim and maybe Manu a step slower, no All defensive player like Bowen, and a raft of good shooters.
3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?
Hypothetically yes. In actuality yes. One poster looked it up and found some teams that had won without being in the top five defensively.
4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?
Yes. We might well come up in a championship series with another team that has an high rating for its offense. There is no telling what matchup we could have in a Championship series.
We are seeing an evolution in the Spurs which began in 2009. Call it two-platoon basketball which means using your depth to win games. It's been a long time since you saw our Big 3 or any starting player consistently play the traditional 35 minutes per game that starters traditionally demanded. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision by Pop or just the way the ball bounced with the personnel available, but he has been able to sell it to the players without injuring egos.
In some ways, running in waves of players (who on other teams and would be nailed to the bench except in garbage time) functions as a form of defense, wearing down the opposition. By the fourth quarter the other team's players who play big minutes are running out of gas, a step slower on their defensive rotations and rebounding and with legs that can't elevate for their jumpers.
Let's call this new paradigm "Defense in Depth". In war a military that doesn't have the abillity to withstand an assault with an impregnable front line of defense will use the tactic of 'defense in depth' to let the opponent wear itself out as the defenders bend but don't break. Consciously or not, I think Pop has come round to this concept for our defense and is cannily using the skill sets of the personnel available. It's not a 'stop them cold' defensive concept anymore, but 'hold 'em and then attack their weak points"
1. All our players are kept fresh, eager, and can go 'all out' on both offense and defense without subconsciously pacing themselves. No player can go 'all out' for 35-40 minutes in today's faster paced NBA. Teams that rely on star players to play that many minutes will have trouble matching up with the Spurs.
2. Our best players are ready to pick up the pace in the 4th quarter at the same time that the other team's best players are lagging.
3. Pop has the luxury of matching up players as the game goes on. If one player can't go then he can try another one with confidence that the result won't be a fiasco in most cases.
4. Teams that out-rebound another team have an advantage and usually win. Keeping fresh aggressive players on the floor at all times tends to help rebounding at both ends. Do you notice a pick-up in our rebounding at the end of games? Aren't we reboundning better as a team lately as injured players return, new additions help, and our youngsters develop more confidence and skill with more playing time?
Our new Paradigm--Defense in Depth
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
Yes. While we don't have the individual player that can be considered a consistent "lock down defender" the defense is rounding out nicely. Remember our ranking is based on the entire season and with all the injuries and new players the development of a defensive personality of this team is still in transition--and getting better as new players have been added, Kwahi improves almost game-to-game.
2. Do you agree with Pop's decision to focus more on offense?
Yes. On one hand he's had to face the fact that the league has changed. Rules and refs calls are harder on the defense because the league wants the excitement value of offensive basketball.
Secondly, the team personnel has changed with Tim and maybe Manu a step slower, no All defensive player like Bowen, and a raft of good shooters.
3. Hypothetically, can a team that is great offensively but average defensively win an NBA championship?
Hypothetically yes. In actuality yes. One poster looked it up and found some teams that had won without being in the top five defensively.
4. Can today's Spurs team win a championship with an offense-first mentality?
Yes. We might well come up in a championship series with another team that has an high rating for its offense. There is no telling what matchup we could have in a Championship series.
We are seeing an evolution in the Spurs which began in 2009. Call it two-platoon basketball which means using your depth to win games. It's been a long time since you saw our Big 3 or any starting player consistently play the traditional 35 minutes per game that starters traditionally demanded. I don't know whether it was a conscious decision by Pop or just the way the ball bounced with the personnel available, but he has been able to sell it to the players without injuring egos.
In some ways, running in waves of players (who on other teams and would be nailed to the bench except in garbage time) functions as a form of defense, wearing down the opposition. By the fourth quarter the other team's players who play big minutes are running out of gas, a step slower on their defensive rotations and rebounding and with legs that can't elevate for their jumpers.
Let's call this new paradigm "Defense in Depth". In war a military that doesn't have the abillity to withstand an assault with an impregnable front line of defense will use the tactic of 'defense in depth' to let the opponent wear itself out as the defenders bend but don't break. Consciously or not, I think Pop has come round to this concept for our defense and is cannily using the skill sets of the personnel available. It's not a 'stop them cold' defensive concept anymore, but 'hold 'em and then attack their weak points"
1. All our players are kept fresh, eager, and can go 'all out' on both offense and defense without subconsciously pacing themselves. No player can go 'all out' for 35-40 minutes in today's faster paced NBA. Teams that rely on star players to play that many minutes will have trouble matching up with the Spurs.
2. Our best players are ready to pick up the pace in the 4th quarter at the same time that the other team's best players are lagging.
3. Pop has the luxury of matching up players as the game goes on. If one player can't go then he can try another one with confidence that the result won't be a fiasco in most cases.
4. Teams that out-rebound another team have an advantage and usually win. Keeping fresh aggressive players on the floor at all times tends to help rebounding at both ends. Do you notice a pick-up in our rebounding at the end of games? Aren't we reboundning better as a team lately as injured players return, new additions help, and our youngsters develop more confidence and skill with more playing time?
First, I don't think either Tim or Pop are saying "we aren't going to focus on defense." I took them to be saying that it wouldn't be like it used to be.
Moreover, I take hit to reflect the reality that the NBA rules have changed over the last 10 years and they have done so much more to allow freer flowing offensive moves. For example, there used to be a lot more hand checking on perimeter players than is allowed now, the lack of charge being called unless the defender is outside of a specific (small) area, etc. etc.
When the Spurs were winning their earliest championships, defense almost always won the series, and the entire NBA game was more defense-oriented. As the league offices became more and more market oriented and big-name super-star oriented, the less the game became about "old time fundamentals like defense" and more about flashier-style, up-tempo games. This style is attractive to a larger and less 'basketball-savvy' audience the is the defense-first-fundamental-basketball-type of play.
So from a marketing standpoint, the NBA has made its choice and made its rules consistent with the product it wants to sell. The spurs were one of the last teams to buy into the marketing approach, and everybody in the league was calling the Spurs 'boring' to watch. When the Spurs were in the playoffs, tv watching went down. , even the spurs players found it boring.
So, with that rationale in mind:
1. No. For the reason that so many have said here...our bigs are not big enough or strong enough or mobile enough or whatever you want to say. We can do it for short periods of time like we did last night in the last five minutes, and we can do it against teams that do not rely on a big post presence, but let's face it, the days of "send your opponent into David and Tim and let them block their shots" are long gone and aren't coming back. This reality puts much more emphasis on our perimeter defenders than there used to be. We haven't figured that out yet. Now, in order to stop perimeter folks we have to get in to the passing lanes more, which we have started to do, or we have to be really good on help defense if the opposing players get past our initial perimeter defense. We have really sucked on help defense this year, and I have to say (although I'll get creamed for it)...Tim has failed miserably in this regard. For the last few games he has done little more than watch guards go past him to the basket.
Last night when we did some double-teaming and the like and got some defensive stops (finally), it was due to our perimeter veterans...not our interior defense.
So, we can do it for (relatively) short periods, or in a different kind of defense than we used to have, but we cannot be the "old Spurs" defense, because we should foul out and or get killed trying to do something we cannot accomplish anymore.
2.Yes, because he has no choice but to make that decision given the team's composition, the league's focus, the rule changes, and the shortened season this season which does not allow for the kind of defensive training that would be required to develop a first-tier defensive squad from these youngsters.
3. Maybe this year, more than any other...because it is so shortened, and because no one has had the time to develop much of anything else. Those in the best position will be those who know each other for the longest, and have defense together in the past.
4. Maybe...this year...not normally.
The Spurs would never have won game 5 against the Suns in '07 without relying on their defense. The Suns came out strong trying to blow them out.
Against great defensive teams the Spurs are going to have to rely on their defense more.
1. Not elite but good with Tiago/TD/Leonard or Jax/Manu and TP
2. Yes, not much you can do when you don't have the players; too much liability on D with Blair, Bonner and Neal.
3. I don't think average is enough. They have to be good
4. Agree with benefactor.
While it's a popular notion that Leonard is already a superb defender because he's young and quick and athletic -- he simply looks like he should be one -- there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that suggests that he is one atm, and L.J. would back this up. The Spurs have been more effective defensively with Stephen Jackson (small sample size though), with Danny Green, even with RJ or James Anderson. Leonard's best asset has been his rebounding on both ends and his scoring in the paint, tbh.
Complete bunk you just made up. Most successful offensive plays in the NBA require good execution by just two or three players (i.e. the Spurs pick-and-roll). Good defense needs all five guys working well on a string. There are countless interviews where Spurs players state that Pop's defensive playbook is far thicker than his offensive one and that it takes at least a year to understand where to be at all times on defense. Offensively, the adjustment for players has been much easier and the most common problem isn't positioning but rather not being over tentative and deferring too much when playing with Top-25 players and certain future HOFers like Tim, Tony and Manu.
Tough to see many flaws in Chicago or Miami. The Bulls are 4th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive efficiency. The Heat are 3rd in offensive efficiency and 4th in defensive efficiency. Either one would be more than a handful for us, especially if they have home court advantage. Winning a 'chip against either would be the most impressive accomplishment in Spurs history, imo, even more so than beating Detroit in '05.
Again, the typical ST bias against Bonner where you trust your lying eyes over all statistical evidence. Not only has he been one of the team's most consistent defenders all season long, but he's one of the best post-up defenders in the league. Bonner's biggest fault, besides his playoff history, is that he doesn't look the part (opposite of Leonard, basically). Like Billy Beane says, "Are we trying to sell jeans here or win games?"
He was benched against the Kings just to get rest, it had nothing to do about matchups. Bonner's specializes against interior scorers and his weakness is actually guarding people similar to him, guys who can space the floor and shoot threes. The Kings don't have stretch fours.
If you worry about match-ups as far as who plays and who doesn't, then Blair and Neal would almost never play.
Yeah, after seeing this post I can see why you mostly just type gay slurs. When you actually try to provide basketball analysis, you're just talking out of your ass.
The game 5 was the only one played at slow pace favoured by the Spurs and that was because Diaw and Amare were suspended. In game 4 Horry hip checked Nash and Amare and Diaw stepped the court from the bench, which is an automatic 1 game suspension. I think that the Spurs could have won that series anyway, perhaps in 7 games.
But the point is that the Spurs wouldn't have survived that series if they weren't able to outscore the Suns. Against some matchups, they need great offense and perhaps this year they can force the opponents to play at their pace.
Bowen was very important to set the defensive style, Duncan was also playing better defense, he's past his prime. Right now it seems that Duncan and Splitter can't play well, because they aren't effective on offense.
The Spurs can improve on defense, with the new players. S-Jax, Diaw and Mills will probably help there.
1. Do you believe that the Spurs still have the tools to become an elite defensive team? For example, are their lineups and a rotation that could be used to enable the team to play the previous style of defense-first Spurs Basketball?
There are several types of defense-oriented styles that a team can run:
1. Individual lock down defense -which is very difficult to do now considering the rules the NBA has put in place in the early to mid 2000's. I thought Memphis did a good job with Battier and Allen on the perimeter and Randolph/Gasol on the interior. Boston had been here couple of years ago.
2. College style perimeter or trap style defense - again very difficult to do in the NBA with elite ball handlers. Although, it can be done once in a while. Maybe the Miami Heat is best example.
3. Defense at the rim - as a team you can press on the perimeter as defensive shot blocking is premier. Not too many teams can do this but I'd say Bulls and OKC.
4. Zone oriented team. This is a team that may not have great shot blocking or lock down defenders on the perimeter but has some shot blocking and athleticism. This team makes good rotations and covers areas in order to deny open looks. I think this is the style of defense the Spurs utilize now. They have smart players that understand their assignments, can press somewhat on the perimeter, go for some steals and realize that their teammates can cover when need be. Finally they have some shot blocking presence in the middle. I think this can be good enough to beat most teams.
Other than Bulls, Heat, and OKC I dont see other teams that have a greater defensive scheme than Spurs do. Im good with Spurs making it to WCF or NBA Finals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
