Reply With Quote
They need people who can play positionless basketball. At one point, GS had 5 guys on the floor who were all about 6'6-6'10 and all could handle and shoot the ball.
If you're including contracts, then ya, I agree..Green should be getting PJ Tucker money and Mills should be making half of what he currently makes..I wouldn't want Pau, regardless, I just dislike everything about him
They need people who can play positionless basketball. At one point, GS had 5 guys on the floor who were all about 6'6-6'10 and all could handle and shoot the ball.
Nope. I'm not bumping it for you.
We have 3-4 guys on the roster that can't play a single position in the NBA, does that count?
Who said anything about bumping it?
Do whatever you want, I don't even know why you brought it up, tbh.
Shhh...It's time man. It's time.
And a center!They need a PG and a SG, too, though
Yeah I'm the one bringing up stuff out of nowhere...Who said anything about bumping it?
Do whatever you want, I don't even know why you brought it up, tbh.
How is time when Manu could easily go to any contender and still be a rotation guy? Unfortunately, he has to be a top 3 player for the Spurs.
Dude. Let it go. It's time.How is time when Manu could easily go to any contender and still be a rotation guy? Unfortunately, he has to be a top 3 player for the Spurs.
I brought your idea that we are fine in terms of wings to a thread that talks about wings. How is that bringing stuff out of nowhere?
Your lack of argumentation is being fully noted son.
He's not your dad. You don't owe him anything. It's just time.Your lack of argumentation is being fully noted son.
They don't need to go all the way to positionless basketball IMO..
There's a MASSIVE middle ground between the current Spurs' 1996 style of play and the progressive teams of the NBA..they can begin by simply acquiring a guard with penetration and scoring skills
This roster and it's style is so bad that people actually get excited about a trash player like Rudy Gay occasionally playing well
No, he's not. He's only the third best player of my favourite NBA team, and I like my NBA team to suck as less as possible, so I would rather keep him, tbh. Hopefully on a more suitable role like being the 7th or 8th best player.
Because it shows the depth of your butt-hurt to bring up a past conversation with a guy who wasn't even in the thread. Like if I started this thread, it would make sense to "call me out" for changing my mind. As it was, it was you just choosing to rub salt in what you think is a wound.I brought your idea that we are fine in terms of wings to a thread that talks about wings. How is that bringing stuff out of nowhere?
You weren't wrong, though: I do disagree with the OP. I didn't physically see this game (just radio for bits and Gamecast for the rest), so I can't say if there was anything specifically about this game to trigger the thread. In general though:
a) The Spurs' depth at small-forward is great assuming a healthy Kawhi. Their weakness comes at guard right now, really just any kind of guard. That will require drastic changes and real dollars to fix. Kawhi being healthy would help, but you still have a declining Green, a limited Mills, a green and relatively unskilled Murray an unknown White, a bad Forbes and an old Manu and Tony there. Not good. White's the only one I absolutely want to see back next year.
b) The Spurs' lack of bigs outside of LMA and guards in general is getting confused with the idea that focusing on bigs and guards is inferior to a wing-centric approach. Pop seems to want to go for specialists over generalists, and that SHOULD actually work out well considering the way the market has shfited away from specialists and how many specialist skills are falling by the wayside. However, the only legit specialist he has on the entire freaking roster is LMA. He has no other bigs who can score reliably in the post, no guards who can get into the paint, no consistent spot-up guys and maybe one real defensive specialist (who's getting to be more icy than hot on that end too).
The plan itself is simple, straight-forward and doesn't have many weaknesses. He wants a ball-control offense with guys (specialists) who can score one-on-one on mismatches (otherwise known as the generalists everyone loves), and make the right play out of doubles to get some good shots. On D, he wants an aggressive switching scheme to keep guys from getting a lot of good looks from three. You get the right guys to run that system, and they should outscore generalist teams more often than not. These just aren't the right guys.
For a Kawhi-less season, the only path to making noise this roster had was if guys like Gay, Green, Tony and Manu had great seasons. Didn't happen. Probably shouldn't have expected it to.
I have to think Pop believed Tony would be better than he has been. It wasn't a very well-founded belief, but he built the roster thinking that in a smaller role, Tony could still do prime-Tony things. I'll be interested in seeing how Pop plays this. He's already benched Parker and reduced his role pretty far down. While I do think he could trade Murray and/or Mills for an impact guard this summer, I'm not sure he's going to be able to keep making room for Tony, especially if Green and Manu depart.They don't need to go all the way to positionless basketball IMO..
There's a MASSIVE middle ground between the current Spurs' 1996 style of play and the progressive teams of the NBA..they can begin by simply acquiring a guard with penetration and scoring skills
This roster and it's style is so bad that people actually get excited about a trash player like Rudy Gay occasionally playing well
Chinook what is your assesment on Kyle Anderson's Ghastly postseason performance so far? The little nig is flying under the radar with all the Green, Forbes and Paddy talk. Surely, he deserves a little criticism too.
I didn't SEE today's game (as I mentioned upthread), so I can't say much about how Anderson played qualitatively tonight. But his line looks unremarkable, though not "ghastly". I didn't think he played all that poorly in Game One. He couldn't guard KD, but that's not his fault. He needs to be more aggressive, but that's pretty much par for the course. Dude wasn't giving it up like he was in love, the way Forbes and Patty were. Nor did he foul like three times in a minute like Murray did. He's not earning himself money right now, but I don't think he should be much closer to the "radar" than he currently is.
Can we stop making the difference between "guards" and "forward"? Shooting guards have a lot more in common with Small forwards than with point guards.
I agree that point guard is our weakest position, but I would rather have wings that can handle the ball instead of true midget point guards (unless we can somehow get an all-star caliber PG like Irving or Paul). Luckily we have two 6'5 PG's (in White and Murray) that could he the future of the franchise. We just need to make up for the wings that will no longer be with us (Green, Kawhi and hopefully Anderson, unless he is signed for nothing higher than around 3/5 millions per year, just as a regular season minutes eater) and find a long term stretch 4 starter (I think it can still be Bertans, but if not you need to find one).
So yeah, get as many 6'6" or higher guys that can move their feet and shoot. Then you can worry about getting a 3rd big to play behind Aldridge and 17 millions per year Gasol, tbh.
He was the best KD defender tonight, but his offense was pathetic..bricked an open corner 3 then ajrballed a corner 3, then passed up an open 3 later on which ultimately led to a bad shot by a teammate..
His game will never open up with the Spurs IMO..
No, because the problem the team has is it's missing guard skills, not wing size. In that regard, two-guards and small-forwards are very different, especially when talking about depth guys. Getting a 6-3 guy who can put up 20-plus points with quickness and ball-handling is much more important than getting a 6-6 guy who can switch everything and shoot a decent percentage. That latter is for a roster with their main guys already identified.
I've never disagreed with that, though. In fact, I went further in saying that I want guys like Forbes replaced with bigger dudes and guys like Green potentially replaced with younger shooters. We disagreed on what to do with the 18th pick. If they lose Gay and Kawhi, they have to replace them with vets or guys like Jackson or Tatum that you can pen in as starters, not some post-lottery rookie. The low-level guys can be replaced with other low-level guys who are bigger, can shoot or otherwise have more upside. The 18th pick is sitting primed for a pretty good big man to fall, and the team needs that, because they only have one legit big right nowI agree that point guard is our weakest position, but I would rather have wings that can handle the ball instead of true midget point guards (unless we can somehow get an all-star caliber PG like Irving or Paul). Luckily we have two 6'5 PG's (in White and Murray) that could he the future of the franchise. We just need to make up for the wings that will no longer be with us (Green, Kawhi and hopefully Anderson, unless he is signed for nothing higher than around 3/5 millions per year, just as a regular season minutes eater) and find a long term stretch 4 starter (I think it can still be Bertans, but if not you need to find one).
Those guys are a dime a dozen, though. The only position that's easier to fill off the scrap heap is offense-first combo-guard. There's a reason why a new "gem" comes out of the d-league each year. Starting-caliber bigs are significantly less rare, which is why Golden State has been drafting at least one every year.So yeah, get as many 6'6" or higher guys that can move their feet and shoot.
I'll be really curious to see how his free agency goes. I think he wants to leave, but PATFO seems to like him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions