Reply With Quote
"He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season"
When there are more FGs/game vs earlier seasons, understandable.
Nice write up about the Spurs dominant offense - when clicking like last PM
2. Parker, NBA-Leading Spurs Turning Up 'O'
By Timothy Varner
TrueHoop Network
With Sunday night's 109-84 defeat of the New Orleans Hornets, the San Antonio Spurs went to 14-0 when scoring 100 points or more. 14-0 is impressive, but what is, perhaps, more surprising is the Spurs are scoring 100 points or more with regularity and ease. In fact, going into this contest, San Antonio was averaging an eye-poppingly uncharacteristic 106.6 points per game.
What gives? Whatever happened to the slow and old, gritty but boring Spurs?
In an effort to keep up with Western Conference elites, Gregg Popovich and the Spurs' front office have redefined the team in recent offseasons, gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring.
Nearly every lineup the Spurs place on the floor features four capable shooters, and the Spurs lack a single five-man configuration that doesn't supply some offensive capability at every position.
The Spurs shot 11-22 on 3-point attempts against the Hornets, and much of that was fueled by a second-quarter unit of Gary Neal, Manu Ginobili, George Hill, Antonio McDyess and Matt Bonner, four of five of whom can dial from range. It was this unit which put the game away, scoring five 3-point baskets in the first 4:28 of the second quarter.
The Spurs' largest lead of the game was 38, which brings us back to the question of San Antonio's newfound offensive potency. San Antonio dealt 29 assists on 41 baskets. It's the epitome of cliche, but the Spurs share the basketball.
Tony Parker, in particular, elevates San Antonio's offense when he transforms his game from simply scoring the ball and becomes a scorer and a passer. Parker had six assists in 27 minutes against the Hornets. He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season.
The win against the Hornets provided a perfect case study on the refreshingly offensive-minded Spurs, and the game was a drawn-perfect diagram on how their offense has pushed San Antonio to a league-leading 17-3 record.
http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...206/daily-dime
"He's averaging a career-high seven assists per game this season"
When there are more FGs/game vs earlier seasons, understandable.
This is what most of the TP haters have been wanting from Tony all along, and the TP fans always made excuses saying this was not part of his game.
actually, if I am not mistaken, most of the "tp fans" said it was not part of the system. I am sure that there is an isolated incident or two who said it wasn't part of his game, but from all that I read it seemed that they were leaning toward Pop's system was more predicated on getting the big man involved in the half court.
Not cool, Varner. Without that "offensive liability" on the team there is a good chance the trophy case at the AT&T Center would be couple short. You could have made your point of redefinition without pointing to one of the best perimeter defenders of his era as the problem.In an effort to keep up with Western Conference elites, Gregg Popovich and the Spurs' front office have redefined the team in recent offseasons, gradually moving away from aging offensive liabilities such as Bruce Bowen, and slowly surrounding their core with youth and scoring.
I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.
What about players that are liabilities in every other area besides offense? The Spurs have one of those that is playing significant minutes right now.
Well then obviously Pop hasn't moved away from them.
Sure he was, but that doesn't mean he needs to be thrown under the bus to make some point about the Spurs current offensive surge. Do you not agree that he was an integral part of at least two of the championship teams?
I love Bruce Bowen. He was an offensive liability. You don't have to cry.
Thrown under the bus?
Of course he was integral. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool who doesn't given Bowen his due. Luckily, the article does nothing of the sort. Saying that Bowen as an offensive liability is the truth. Saying that pop has moved away from a player like that is the truth. I have no idea why you think thats being thrown under a bus.
That's actually not completely accurate. Matt Bonner can easily become an offensive liability if his shot is not falling. At least Bruce could still impact the game even if his corner 3 was off.Thrown under the bus?
Of course he was integral. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool who doesn't given Bowen his due. Luckily, the article does nothing of the sort. Saying that Bowen as an offensive liability is the truth. Saying that pop has moved away from a player like that is the truth. I have no idea why you think thats being thrown under a bus.
IMO it is disrespectful to single out Bruce as any type of liability. True fans of this team know that he was the heart and soul of what Spurs basketball was all about.
To Tony...................................
I don't really think Bowen was a liability on offense, at least in the Spurs system.
Sure, if he had been asked to create his own shot, or shoot off the dribble, he would have been. In most systems, he would have been.
But the Spurs offense has revolved around a wing player being able to shoot the corner three for as long as I can remember (at least back to the sean elliott days). Because Bruce could do that, and do it well, he fit into the Spurs' offensive system just fine. If anything, the main problem with Bruce was he limited the Spurs offensively to a smaller set of plays that allowed him to fill the particular role he was good at.
Not sure why you are making such a big deal about this. Bowen was an offensive liability and that was a fact. If varner was talking about defense I am sure Bowen would be singled out as an asset at that time.
Career 40% 3 point shooter was an offensive liability?
Aren't some of you singing praises of the exact same kind of production from ginger?
Make up your minds.
Bowen was a fabulous player but with Duncan averaging a given 20 a night they could afford him not taking a lot of shots. The Spurs may be plausibly a better team most of the game without him; but I do wish they still had Bruce around to see if he could give them 10 minutes of lock down defense a game when needed - I would bet he could still outplay Ime anyday as he kept himself in fine shape.
I'd rather that "offensive liability" be shooting the three in the playoffs than Bonner. I weep that Bonner is our Horry replacement.
This.
Bruce Bowen wasn't an offensive force by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't remember how many of those timely corner-threes saved our asses. He didn't fill up the scoring column, but he sure knew how to hit them when they counted.
The guy led the league in 3PT% one year. How is that a liability?
And at least he could occasionally finish a drive around the basket.
Except for his corner 3 point shooting, Bruce Bowen can be seen as an offensive liability but the Spurs of old had enough options on offense anyway and his defense/intangibles made up for it.
While he led the league in 3pt%, he was one dimensional even in his strength since he was really only elite in the corners when it comes to the 3 point arc. Bowen also was hack-able much like Shaq since he wasn't good (actually terrible is more like it) at the line. If a defender denied his 3 point shot and forced Bruce to put the ball on the floor then the results afterwards usually wouldn't be pretty either.
Agreed...Was going to state the same facts
fg%= 40%
ft%= 55%
Think you forgot these 2..
There's no question Bruce was one dimensional on the offensive end. That's not necessarily a liability when he more than made up for it on the other end.
These new 'high octane' offensive Spurs also have one dimensional offensive players in fairly prominent roles (at least viewed from currently assigned playing times).
The difference is that a combination of Bowen and a younger Duncan used to give you enough defense where it was enough with the scoring provided by the big 3 to win games. We don't have that luxury anymore, in part, because of Bowen retirement.
agreed. but this article is about the offense
He was asked to be a 3 point shooter mainly offensively. He did that well.fg%= 40%
ft%= 55%
Think you forgot these 2..
His bread and butter was obviously defense. I don't remember Hack-a-Bowen being used on him where his FT% was actually a detriment to playing him.
The article's attempt to draw comparisons to yesteryears Spurs through a guy like Bowen fails miserably though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
