Reply With Quote
"Are Things really So Bad?"
If we get Butler No. If we don't Yes. Not like the Spurs are going to be lottery team but the roster most likely will be slightly worse than last year's .
My bad .. I got confusedI was speaking of the spurs playing small ball
The Heat didn't play small-ball because we didn't start Harris and Terry (Wade would Post-up Terry all night long .... it wouldn't have been pretty)If the spurs copy-cat anyone i hope they copy-cat what the heat did, small ball didn't win again.
The Heat used a zone in those situations to keep Shaq on the floor and out of foul trouble. I am not sure Pop would go with a zone sceme for any length of time .... but then again, I don't know Pop that well
A zone is a good counter the Mavs speed attack though ... I expect to see the Spurs play it (copy-cat and all)
"Are Things really So Bad?"
If we get Butler No. If we don't Yes. Not like the Spurs are going to be lottery team but the roster most likely will be slightly worse than last year's .
Exactly! People are acting as if Rasho or Nazr avg. 16ppg! The Spurs lost in the 2nd round to the lakers a couple years back and came back and won it all again. I do agree we need to trade Barry for a SF. It would be even sweeter if the dude can hit a few 3's.... This team is built to make le runs as it stands for at least another 3-4 years. Panic then! I'll be ordering my league pass once again to watch my squad "quietly" whip ass all the way thru June!
It was their 2 blocks, 10 rebounds and defense in the paint that they missed. And unfortunately they only averaged 11 points per game, not 16.
It's never been about the points from that position. It's about the defense and rebounding.Exactly! People are acting as if Rasho or Nazr avg. 16ppg!
Let me guess, you think small ball is a great thing for this team.
I just hope beyond hope that spoiled Spurs fans don't get to see what " center play" actually is firsthand any time soon.
Uh no! I hate small ball. But replacing two "serviceble" centers w/ two more doesn't look so bad to me. And those stats were per player not combined! Nazr nor Rasho avg 10 rpg and 2 bpg! Last month you all were saying how we needed to get rid of those guys, well damn! Yes Nazr had a knack for offensive rebounds, and yes Rasho was an excellent "team" defender, but did we loose damn Ben Wallace or something?!?!?!?! Relax schitzos, the Spurs will be in the hunt once again as they have for the past few years! In the last 10 years I have never seen the Spurs make big splashes in FA. The draft picks are never high except for Tim, but yet they quietly build a successful roster year after year. "Spoiled"?????? Please, I am a fan and unlike a Knicks fan, I have reason to be excited about the upcoming season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rasho and Nazr shared the center position, so combining their averages per game makes a of a lot more sense than looking at the averages by themselves to rate their contribution to the team. Of course, the Spurs losing without them hasn't been enough to convince some people.
I agree (again) small ball was a mistake, but isn't Butler a 6'10 banger, and Elson whom I'm not all whooopeee about 7ft? Truth is I would prefer Pryzbilla (don't know if that's spelled correctly), but if the Knicks don't match I would prefer Butler over Nazr or Rasho b/c I think he's better on offense looking at the Knicks games I viewed (quite a few). On defense both he and Elson are not as good as Rasho, but neither was Rasho when he was in Minnesota... Plus I think Finley will be huge next year off the bench since he seemed much more comfortable w/ Pop's system by the time the playoffs rolled around. Now we just need to get rid of the Son Of Rick for someone in their 20's and we should be fine. Tim's foot will have completely healed and if Manu doesn't drain himself on the Argentine b-ball team and Tony gets even better, all will be right w/ in Spurs world. So fear not, the Spurs train, like always will be coming thru!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You and I are mostly in agreement. I agree that Rasho was overpaid and dumping his contract was good. I also think the Pistons overpaid for Nazr. That said, they weren't nearly as terrible as some on this board have been blindly repeating over and over. I simply took issue with the suggestion that the Spurs were getting " play" from the centers and hope we never find out what that's actually like.
Yeah, I hate to bring it up again, but I think small ball was a big mistake. I could understand part of the game, but Nazr and Rasho never came off the bench! I forgot who posted but someone said if you don't dance w/ the lady you brought to the dance she will leave w/ someone else. That someone else was dallas advancing and us fishing on the old creek!
I'm the one who said that. I often worry that people just get sick of my ing and ignore my posts. At least someone is reading.
Obviously an inappropriate place for this topic, but...
I don't like small ball either because I'm a traditionalist and I feel unsettled by change. Same reason I don't like watching the Suns play. But there's a difference between not liking it very much and thinking it was a mistake, or saying things like " Small Ball." I think small ball, as an hetical as it may be, was the best strategy at the time. And I don't really think it's a bad strategy to use against the Mavs next year, either. Let me explain:
Here's how a defense of small ball might go:
One of Dallas' four-headed centers is always on the court: Diop, Dampier, Mbenga, or Van Horn. Now let's say you eschew small ball and play Rasho 20-30 minutes per game. Who's he going to guard? Putting him on Dirk would be a laughing stock. You can't stick him on Diop either, because that leaves Duncan to guard Dirk. If you want to put Bowen on Dirk, that forces Duncan to guard Howard or Griffin if Rasho's on DeSagana. Duncan on Dirk still allows Dirk to score in the 25-30 range (since Duncan really can't take away Dirk's drive to the hoop from the elbow and can't jump high enough to block that driving layup), wears out Timmy, and likely gets him into foul trouble. We saw this in the last 4 minutes of game 3, when Tim got stuck guarding Dirk (because Bowen was in serious foul trouble) and Tim fouled him twice, numbers 5 and 6. Duncan on Howard is even worse, since Howard can blow right by him and step out for long range jumpers, pulling Tim out of the paint and forcing Rasho to get all the defensive boards. So playing Rasho means he has to guard either Diop or Dirk, and neither of those scenarios is any better than starting Bruce at PF and putting him on Nowitzki.
The only other option is to give Nazr the lion's share of the minutes at 5. Nazr is a better (offensive) rebounder than Rasho and he's more athletic. Nazr is more inept on offense than Rasho, and he is (arguably) a worse defender. Rasho plays good one-quarter post position defense, is a decent shot blocker, and has a mid-range jumper than garners just a little bit of respect. The problem with Nazr isn't as much in the x's and o's as it is in the head. Nazr played well (by his standards) in the two regular season victories against the Mavs, averaging 10 ppg, but had not been playing very well during the playoffs (excepting Game 1 against Sacramento, a game in which even I would have played 20 minutes and shot 8-8 from three if I had been wearing a Spurs uniform). The one game where he got any significant time (Game 2), he had 4 fouls and 1 point in 12 minutes. With Nazr, you still have problems matching him up against Dirk or Howard, and he had that deer-in-headlights look when he did get in the game. Maybe being in Pop's doghouse wrecked his confidence, or not getting consistent minutes hurt his rhythm or whatever, but regardless of the reason, he wasn't mentally prepared to play against the Mavs in the playoffs, whereas Finley was. Add that to the matchup problems, and I think it makes a lot of sense to nail him to the bench.
Both Nazr and Rasho would have helped the Spurs rebounding, which by all accounts was atrocious against Dallas. They might have even denied Devin Harris a lay-up or two with their long arms. But I think it's ironic that those who criticize small ball point to the lack of defense, when sticking with the big lineup would have actually resulted in worse individual defense on Howard, Griffin, and/or Dirk.
Now I know it sucks that the Spurs had to conform to another team because the matchups just didn't work out in their favor. It's tough to swallow a complete change of mentality in the playoffs, especially when it fails to ensure victory. But you loved it last year when the Spurs annihilated the Suns by refusing to defend Amare and letting him average something ridiculous like 37 ppg while shooting a bunch of one-pass threes in transition. And if you honestly look at the Spurs' roster and compare it to the Mavs' rotation, you can see why the characteristic defense-first approach of the Spurs was inappropriate to use against this Dallas team. Maybe one different piece, like an athletic big who could play D or a long 3 who could shoot, would have changed everything and allowed the Spurs to force the Mavericks to alter their game plan. But with Parker, Ginobili, Finley, Bowen, Duncan, Barry, Horry, Van Exel, Mohammed and Nesterovic, you have to go small.
I'm sorry, but that defense of smallball makes zero sense, and people keep saying it like it means something. "Imagine how bad it would have been if they HADN'T gone to smallball." Um, they lost. It's not like it worked AT ALL. I'm not sure how the Spurs suddenly started allowing 101 points per game in the playoffs and people still think it was a good idea.
Seriously, how could the defense of Dirk, Howard and Harris (not Griffin) been much worse? Everyone on the Mavericks got to the rim and got to the line - AFTER MAKING THE BASKET. The only jumpers they took were wide open threes, and only when they decided to. I'd have welcomed having Josh Howard attempt to beat the Spurs with "long range jumpers". Jump shooting teams don't win, and neither do teams that allow layups. Too bad the Spurs decided to become the latter.
When your defensive philosophy is to funnel people to the shot blockers and you suddenly take out all but one of the shot blockers and make him try to patrol both sides of the paint by himself while Horry and Finley get in the way, I'm not sure how you expect the defense to improve, especially when you introduce it three games into the playoffs with no warning. By the way, THAT is the reason Duncan was in foul trouble, not because Dirk is the greatest offensive player Duncan's ever had to guard. I guess those 63 wins of playing your style of basketball were just fools gold. If Rasho and Nazr sucked so bad then I wonder why the defense and rebounding went to when they weren't in there. I guess it's just the greatness of the Mavericks team that got beat four straight by the Miami Heat.
Look, I can understand to a certain extent having to make some changes against the Kings, because their two best players were Bonzi and Artest, and both were playing out of their minds. THAT'S a matchup problem. I absolutely don't buy that Duncan is incapable of covering Dirk for any stretch of time, nor do I understand this need to assign A defender to A player when the Spurs have stuck Bruce on one guy and played basically man over zone a thousand times.
Pop historically gives up on guys too quickly, and he had too long of a list for the talent of the team to recover from it. It's sad that the Spurs ended up laying a bigger egg than any other Spurs team in history as a result. It's even more sad that most Spurs fans are blaming the loss on bad officiating or Manu's foul rather than where it belongs.
Um...you didn't address any of my specific points at all. You resort to hyperbole and superlatives, like:
"'Imagine how bad it would have been if they HADN'T gone to smallball.' Um, they lost. It's not like it worked AT ALL." - It could have been much worse...they could have lost 4-1 or 4-2. It worked to the extent that the Spurs were one Manu foul away from winning the series coming back from down 3-1.
"Jump shooting teams don't win, and neither do teams that allow layups." - The Spurs would have allowed more layups with Duncan on Howard or Rasho on Dirk. Did you even read my post?
"By the way, THAT is the reason Duncan was in foul trouble, not because Dirk is the greatest offensive player Duncan's ever had to guard." - Wait, the reason Duncan was in foul trouble was because he had to patrol the lane, which is what he has been going for the last 17 years of his life? He didn't pick up the fouls I refer to "patrolling the lane"...he picked them up trying to guard Dirk.
"I absolutely don't buy that Duncan is incapable of covering Dirk for any stretch of time" - I don't believe that either, which is why I didn't say it. Duncan can be okay in spurts. If you put Duncan on Nowitzki for the game, Dirk will blow up, and you're deluding yourself if you're not willing to admit that. You know he's quicker than Duncan and you know that Duncan can't guard faster guys who drive on him. Duncan is a beast defender, but Dirk just has a rare combination of height, ball-handling skills, and shooting touch that render someone like Duncan ineffective against him.
"I guess those 63 wins of playing your style of basketball were just fools gold. " - Keep in mind, only two of those 63 wins were against the Mavs. Limit the discussion to that topic, because I'm NOT trying to defend a season't worth of small ball.
I mean, seriously, you think big ball was working so well? Why didn't Pop stick with it then? Is he just so dumb that he has to change the strategy in mid stream just for the of it? Or do you think he had a realization that big ball was not going to work, and so the Spurs needed to try something new? Which one of those scenarios seems more likely?
I do blame the loss on Manu's foul, because the simple fact of the matter is that Spurs would have come back from down 3-1 PLAYING SMALL BALL if Manu hadn't ed up. That's a reality that you can't contest.
Great question. When you find the answer you let me know. The two times in the playoffs that Pop "stuck with it" the Spurs won by 40 and beat the Mavericks on an 18 hour turnaround.
Game 1 against Dallas third quarter-- enough said.
Me no follow. What are you talking about?
I could be wrong, but I don't remember any small ball going on against Phoenix. We should have let Dirk get his points and controlled the other players, b/c this is a "team" sport, like Bruce shutting down Marion. That's the reason I don't agree w/ small ball. Instead Dirk STILL got his and so did at least two Terry, Stackhouse, Howard, or Harris combos! As the obstructed one said, our defense is predicated on our wings funneling players baseline which is non-existent w/ only one big on the floor. Dirk could avg 45ppg in that series w/ "big balls" on the court (pun intended), but no one else would've gone off w/ 25 and 30 point games! We are all en led to our own opinion, but I try to base mine off history and history tells me that we win w/ the defense, not trying to outscore someone! If we don't rebound or block shots we lose. We tried putting in a quicker lineup, which would be fine if the small ball lineup was actually quick! What I'm ultimately saying is, small ball only works, if you have that type of personnel on your roster, the Spurs DON'T. So yes, I was pissed every time one of the mavs gaurds came driving thru the lane w/ the greatest of ease! Dirk could pull a Kobe (81), but why the did we give up so much penetration and free throws to a team w/ no post player? SMALL GODAMN BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seeing as how Rasho and Nazr really didn't even play in the playoffs, if they play they'll already be better.
People forget the Spurs were losing at halftime of Game 1 against Dallas. They took the game over during the third quarter-- the only quarter of the whole series (I believe) during which NO small ball was played. The line-up had 2 of either Tim, Rob, or Rasho at all times. That quarter was the reason game 1 was won, but we never saw it again.
Small ball sucks crack!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
