Thanks, and here's hoping

[Blackjack]

My latest, and Happy Thanksgiving y'all.

Thanks, and here’s hoping
Project Spurs



The Spurs are 12-1 and atop the league standings. Over the past eight days, they’ve defeated the Thunder in OKC — on the second night of a back to back. They’ve beaten the Jazz in Utah — exacting a little revenge from last year’s regular-season sweep (4-0). They’ve managed to tame two Eastern conference beasts at the friendly confines of the AT&T Center (Chicago and Orlando). The league and its writers are beginning to take notice; no longer is a soft, favorable schedule providing the ammunition to dismiss.

There is so much for a Spurs fan to be thankful for this Thanksgiving holiday. Forget all that has become before, the championships and all the cherished Spurs’ memories, this year has exceeded all expectation through thirteen games: Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili have been hands-down the best backcourt in the NBA. Duncan, while taking a bit of a backseat, is healthy — still making his presence felt — and looking more than capable of being a dominant force when called upon. Richard Jefferson has found a way, his game, his confidence. Antonio McDyess looks to have found the fountain of youth (or some HGH — kidding). The Spurs have added three rookies to the roster in Splitter, Anderson and Neal, that have all exhibited the ability to be quality rotation players. Matt Bonner, well, the redhead can shoot it a bit — currently boasting a league-leading 3-point percentage (69.2%).

So pass the turkey, the pie and a nice cold beverage. Time to just kick back, relax and give thanks for all that is Spurs’ basketball and Tryptophan.

Or not.

Continue Reading >>>

[ChuckD]

And that’s where wheels start to wobble. A team with championship aspirations being dependent upon a role player, one in which happens to rely on a 3-point shot and the playmaking of others. It’s a notion that is just so inherently wrong that it’s irreconcilable

Fail X 7, Homes!!

[Blackjack]

Fail X 7, Homes!!

Comparing Bonner to Horry. That's rich. Was Horry nothing more than a spot-up 3-point shooter? He didn't make plays or play the other end of the floor? #SMH

[ChuckD]

Comparing Bonner to Horry. That's rich. Was Horry nothing more than a spot-up 3-point shooter? He didn't make plays or play the other end of the floor? #SMH

RIF. Never said Bonner = Horry. If you read his premise as stated, it's flawed. If you beat around the bush, and evade the point, your gets slammed. If he thinks Bonner isn't good enough, he should say so, and not reference 3 point shooters who have to play off others.

[DieHardSpursFan1537]

I love how you stopped the article right when it started getting good.

"Or not"

Time to read the rest of the article.

[Blackjack]

RIF. Never said Bonner = Horry. If you read his premise as stated, it's flawed. If you beat around the bush, and evade the point, your gets slammed. If he thinks Bonner isn't good enough, he should say so, and not reference 3 point shooters who have to play off others.

He is me, and some things are implied. Like when a Spurs fan thinks, speaks or writes about of Bonner, they don't feel the need to state why a team's championship aspirations shouldn't be reliant upon him.

It's implied. Ya know, like breathing, swallowing, not ever feeling the need to believe his peers, fellow fans and anyone reading would ever find themselves hearing the name Matt Bonner and feeling that the same standard should be applied to Robert Horry.

But whatevs . . .

[Chomag]

Bonner: Hey Pop, I hold Splitter's career right here in the palm of my hand!
Pop: Keep shooting those three's Matty!



Sorry couldnt help it. Thanks, this was a good read.

[Fundamental]

Bonner: Hey Pop, I hold Splitter's career right here in the palm of my hand!
Pop: Keep shooting those three's Matty!t

Great article. and Chomag: great caption

[ChuckD]

He is me, and some things are implied. Like when a Spurs fan thinks, speaks or writes about of Bonner, they don't feel the need to state why a team's championship aspirations shouldn't be reliant upon him.

It's implied. Ya know, like breathing, swallowing, not ever feeling the need to believe his peers, fellow fans and anyone reading would ever find themselves hearing the name Matt Bonner and feeling that the same standard should be applied to Robert Horry.

But whatevs . . .

You leave yourself open to people using other examples when you use generic statements like "championship teams shouldn't depend on role players who rely on the three and play off others". I knew you meant Bonner, but used Horry as someone who fit your limited generic parameters, but blew up your premise. Write more specifically, and stay on point. Don't make those assumptions. Your stuff will be better.

I also think people overstate Bonner's playoff woes. Last year was the first season where he played double digit minutes and was in his regular role, and he shot 43%/37%. Dallas the year before was an overall disaster. Manu was out, Tim was hobbling, and it was Tony, Hill, and Bonner expected to carry the load of scoring. He isn't equipped for that level of attention. He needs to be the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.

[Blackjack]

You leave yourself open to people using other examples when you use generic statements like "championship teams shouldn't depend on role players who rely on the three and play off others". I knew you meant Bonner, but used Horry as someone who fit your limited generic parameters, but blew up your premise. Write more specifically, and stay on point. Don't make those assumptions. Your stuff will be better.

I can appreciate constructive criticism -- no bull -- but the only failed premise is your own.

There's nothing I suggested that states a case for Horry being the player I described. Nothing. No championship team employing Robert Horry had it's fate tied to him being a spot up shooter. Not one. Not one of those 7 championship team's fate was tied to Robert Horry and him standing on the periphery completely dependent upon the playmaking of others. Not one.

Matt Bonner's role on a team is much closer to Steve Kerr than it is Robert Horry. You're sorely mistaken on what it was Horry brought to the game and the type of player he was or your rush to bust out a "fail" has put you on your heels and swinging wildly.

Again, Robert Horry is not the one-dimensional offensive player described in the piece; nor is the role suggested anything Robert Horry was ever the purveyor of.

I also think people overstate Bonner's playoff woes. Last year was the first season where he played double digit minutes and was in his regular role, and he shot 43%/37%. Dallas the year before was an overall disaster. Manu was out, Tim was hobbling, and it was Tony, Hill, and Bonner expected to carry the load of scoring. He isn't equipped for that level of attention. He needs to be the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.

I don't have any problem with Bonner. It's not his fault he's been put in a position to play a more important and prominent role. But if anyone thinks this team is going to win another championship with him being the first big off the bench or with the team being very much dependent on his success, which means he's got to be scoring at a much better clip than the Spurs are at a loss on the defensive end, I'm going to very much disagree.

The endgame of the piece is defense. The Spurs added two players to the roster that have shown the potential to meet the team's defensive needs: Splitter and Anderson. Without those two playing key roles -- Splitter more so than Anderson -- the team doesn't have the means to be that much better than they were a year ago.

[angelbelow]

Great read, thanks.

[ohmwrecker]

Robert Horry could rebound and play defense iirc . . . and I hope the Spurs' success is not solely predicated on Matt Bonner's ability, or lack thereof, to hit the three at such a rate and efficiency that his other glaring deficiencies cease to be liabilities . . . but it sure seems that way sometimes.