For Spurs fans

People knock Bowen, yet who was at the 3 in the playoffs? Ferry
starting and the injured Elliott (knees) backing him up.

Bowen and Ferry or Stephen Jackson backing him up is definitely
an improvement there.

At the 1, AD starting and Parker/Porter backing him up is an
improvement over last season.

I think that Smith and SJackson or AD backing him up is an
improvement for the Spurs over last season...especially in the
playoffs.

With the rule changes (no illegal D and more contact allowed) Smith will be just fine defensively, especially with his size and Duncan and DRob backing him up.

The Spurs have added some size out on the perimeter, which will help to take advantage of the rules changes.

I don't recall saying that the loss of DA in the playoffs was "devastating", but let's assume that I did...so what? My point has been that Smith is a better fit for the Spurs and is a proven playoff performer, unlike DA. I don't see how that conflicts with saying that the loss of DA was significant in the playoffs. My point is that Smith is a better fit.

 

Let us look at this again:

At the 1--
Last year: Porter, AD, Avery J
This year: AD, Porter, Parker

Unless you think the French rookie will contribute more than AJ last year (do you really think Parker will play come playoffs??), how can you possible say the new group is better. They are basically the same players minus Avery plus a rookie, but Porter is 1 more year closer to 40 and AD is one more year closer to 30.

At the 2--
Last year: DA, AD
This year: Smith, S. Jackson?

DA and AD gave them athleticsm, defense and easy baskets just not duplicated by the others. If you credit AD for strenthing the "1" on this years team, you can't count him as a major back-up 2 (unless by mid-season he has proven his best role isn't as a starting one and they are forced to find a different role for him). I just don't agree with your Smith is "a better fit" argument either. If putting in a older rapidly becoming 1-dimensional player is a better fit than your most athetic player, player most likely to generate easy baskets, and most well-rounded (offense, defense) guard, you have than you have to wonder exactly what you are trying to fit to.

At the 3--
Last year: Ferry, Elliott, Jar Jackson
This year: Bowen, Ferry, S. Jackson

You can make a good case here that the 01 Spurs are better here. But by no means is it by leaps and bounds because none of the new guys are more than marginal starting NBA players. They may be better than before, but they they still are not good.

Regardless of how this years group compares with last years swept group I still see no-one mentioning a less-talented or less-skilled collection of 1-2-3s that will exist in the NBA next year. AT BEST the new Spurs supporting cast will be marginally better than last year (I obviously personally feel the loss of DA will hurt more than the Spurs folk seem to think), and a radically better Spurs team is needed to compete with the Lakers next year.

 

Scar, If you've got the time and ability please go for it......


Any chance you'd also be willing to list:
The best 4-5's
The best team inside game
The best team outside game
Best team offense
Best team defense

And throw that in the mix ( just to be objective)

 

I am not the one having the problem with objectivity. I am running out of time, and will only offer another couple of posts until for about 9 days or so.

But real quick:

Lakers- Shaq gives them the best inside game in the league, bar none, no contest. Shaq and whoever you put at the 4 (say Horry) are pretty much equal in effectivness as TD and DR. Let's say I am generous and give TD and DR a slight edge over Shaq and Horry. But look elsewhere. #1 Kobe destroys Smith or anyone else. #2 Fox is much better all around player than Bowen. #3 Fisher (when healthy) is a better shooter than AD. What about the bench? Now the Lakers have Mitch--a far more complete 6th man than anyone the Spurs have (arguably Mitch is pretty comparable to your 3rd best player Smith), plus the veteran good shooting Hunter behind Fisher and Walker as back-up 4. As the team are now, just as they were last season when it actually mattered, IT IS NO CONTEST.

Sacramento- TD and D-Rob are better than Webber and Vlade, but the former are also among the best 5 pairs in the league and would do plenty of damage on their own. You could argue a wash between Christie (better D) and Smith (better O), though it is interesting MrSpur said Christie was one of the first players the Spurs were thinking of to replace DA and this wash is on the hopes that Smith doesn't wear down not playing along side a sea of other good gaurds and SFs (Blazers). The rest of the comparison is SAC in a LANDSLIDE. Peja is a far better player than Bowen and one of the up and coming players in the league, Bibby is around a top 12 starting PG for a couple of years. Sac has a far superior bench, with better guards, forwards and a back-up center on the depth chart.

I don't care to compare the rest because I assume these are the teams the Spurs want to beat, no the Gizzards or Bulls. Denver has a pretty good pair of C and PF but not much else and look how far that has gotten them. I have said even with among the worst set of 1-2-3s in the whole league the Spurs look to me to still be the 3rd best team in the West. That ain't too shabby. No objective person can put the Spurs ahead of the Lakers based on offseason moves or last season results, and I think most reasonable people have the Kings right with them and maybe slightly ahead of them as well based on the same factors.

Who is not being objective???

Care to humor me with any potential playoff teams with a worse set of 1-2-3s????

 

Scar,

Maybe I'm just not following closely enough, but are you saying I'm not being objective, or someone else?

Opinions are like ears...everyones got some.

When it comes to the Spurs, objective Spurs fan may have the best read on whether a personnel change is positive or negative, compared to an outsiders opinion. It's like if I was to say player XXX on the Rockets is a scrub because he only averaged ## points agame. A rocket fan may know player XXX ten times better, and know his value to the team, plus intangibles, that an outsider cannot see just from a stat sheet.

When it comes to comparing LA versus SA, then it's anyones guess, and that guess may be more objective.

As far as WC rankings:

#1 Lakers
#2 Any of a couple teams (SA, SAC, Portland) that will have to be at the top of their game if and when they meet up with LA.

I think we can agree its senseless to spend too much time worrying about the order of #2 thru 4. They're all in the same ballpark and one injury, streak, or intangible away from separating one from the other.

But, I don't think any Spurs fan has stated we are superior to LA, rather, we match up well, like our chances, and will see what happens.

As far as finding playoff teams with worse 1-2-3's, sorry, no can do...time factor. Plus, that won't answer the question of whether the Spurs 1-2-3 has improved versus last year. The regular season will show if it is or not.

Enjoy the time off scar, I assume its a vacation. Just out of curiosity what is the meaning of "desert scar"?

 

i, too, have asked the infamous MrSpur this question. and he has never answered me, either.

maybe you'll have better luck than i did.

my guess is that he has NO ANSWER.

 

Guys...

It was alluded that with all this great cap space the Spurs would have in 2003, there would be no decent FA's on the market. I listed quite a few.

As far as which players the Spurs team are considering, we have no way of knowing definitively, Pop doesnt air those guesses in public, and I doubt any other team does. 2003 is pretty far out. Has Tomjanovich publicly stated who is on his 2003 FA wish list?

That pretty much leaves speculation by the fans. Myself, I like Kandi, Jamison, O'neal, Wells, Clark, Zo, Terry, Wally, Marion, francis Brand, Odom.

I'm sure there will be several of last years rookies that will step up this year and next and be A-list FA's.

Whether it will be a banner FA year or not, there will be quality players out there and SA will have the $ to play.

 

In the debate of whether this years team is better than last years, one Spur pick-up that has not been talked about much is Cherokee Parks. A definite improvement in back-up center over last year.

All star? No. But a center that has started his whole career, and could start on any number of teams today. He will back up D-rob. Why is this significant or an improvement?

There was a void when Will Purdue left after the championship season. When D rob rested, or got in foul trouble, we sufferred. Tim stayed on the floor and had nobody in the middle. Samaki did an OK job, so did Malik. The other options were Shawnelle Scott, or Felton Spencer. Time and time again you saw them out on the floor battling Shaq, or another top center. Always a mis-match.

Bottom line, NONE of them could adequately take over for Dave, and REGULARLY we were at a disadvantage against the opposition.

You'd have to agree Parks was a good pickup, and improvement over the last 2 years. Whomever LA chooses to back up Shaq will not be half as good as Parks.

 

jamison wont be a fa in 2003 he signed a max deal with gs, and theres no way francis is leaving houston, unless a drastic turn for the worse happens-expect him locked up next summer to a long tern extension, and i did see you but him in small print so im sure you expect him to stay put

 

Good God, I can't believe there's still this much discussion over guys like Bruce Bowen, Danny Ferry and Cherokee Parks.

Likewise, I can't understand how <b>sure</b> some of you fans are that this makes you a better team. Hell, we picked up Glen Rice and Eddie Griffin - but I don't think we should be pencilling in the championship. Seriously, though, on our level of current development - we're still debating playoffs or not.

Anyhow, just to counter a point mentioned a few posts ago...Both Walker and Rose are better than Parks. He's just another body and that makes him the only positive - because Shaq will drill through him just like any other center you throw his way.

If you're talking about impact, I'd rather have either Samaki or Malik (who gives great effort from what I can tell) on the court.

 

IF Malik and Samaki are better than Parks....

and Malik gets significant playing time....

while Samaki barely got any playing time (unless there was injuries, or the game is in the Spurs control)

Then... putting Parks in at center, and moving Malik over to his natural forward role, would make the second unit better.

Parks is no superstar, and yeah..nobody will stop Shaq, but Shaq will be on the bench most of the time Parks is in the game.

Parks + Malik on the floor at the same time

is better than

No-name journeyman scrub center + Malik

 

Parks is a no-name journeyman scrub center.

From what I gather regarding your comments, they never really gave Walker much of a chance?

To be honest, if I were a Spur fan the idea of having neither Duncan or Robinson in the game at some point and having Malik and (insert whatever scrub center here) out there instead would cause a cold sweat to break out anyway.