GT: Mavericks vs. Spurs

Moderator: G R E Y

Black_Jack21
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,729
And1: 27
Joined: May 20, 2004
Location: Help us Obi Wan Ginobili, you're our only hope...

GT: Mavericks vs. Spurs 

Post#21 » by Black_Jack21 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:48 am

Guys we have played 2 more games since the mavs...move on.
Fate rarely calls upon us at a time of our choosing

-Optimus Prime
co_laper
General Manager
Posts: 8,531
And1: 331
Joined: Jun 06, 2002
 

Re: GT: Mavericks vs. Spurs 

Post#22 » by co_laper » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:47 pm

This is starting to feel like how it was between me and Donald. But honestly guys, I think at some point there's a time that we just have to agree to disagree. We all have our own opinions of Jackson. Sin just analyze things more in a statistical way I guess. I always say stats don't tell the whole story.

Let's just use an example ofcourse like.. Robert Horry vs the man that replaced him. Matt Bonner.

Horry's stats
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... bert-horry

Bonner's stats
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... att-bonner

I don't know what arguments that can be made that says Horry is better because the years during their Spurs era says Bonner is better or atleast as good as Horry was.



SinJackal wrote:
I never said he was a chucker or a bad teammate, I said he was a volume scorer and inefficient. I also said he occasionally dribbled around and took bad shots, which is anti-Spurs. Hence, what I didn't like about him.


I'll agree to a point about this. Jackson is the anti-spur. When you talk about guys who are made to be a Spur (Battier is the most recent one), I think you talk about guys that we consider are perfect compliments skills wise to the big three. At the same time, when we came to trade for Jefferson, it was obvious what the team needed and that was more talent on the team because the year before that, Manu was injured in the playoffs and the Spurs finally realized we had nothing outside of Duncan and Parker. George Hill wasn't playing then as a rookie. Bruce Bowen and Michael Finley was our starters. If I'm not mistaken, I think that was even the year Roger Mason looked decent? I'm not sure about that last part, but we had role players who couldn't create their own shots or for others. Duncan wasn't even as dependable as he used to. If you guys remember, that was the summer where Parker made the comment about we needing more talent on the team and then we traded for RJ hoping that we get a guy who can score. Instead, we got a three point specialist. Basically we got a Matt Bonner at SF.

Last year was basically our best offensive team ever statistically but you can't hardly point out RJ as the main reason unless you're just gonna go by stats. Those who watch will know that it was the emergence of George Hill and Gary Neal that allowed us to have more offensive weapon and it was their ability to create their own shots and for others that made us better. We no longer depend on three guys to do each and every singlething (kinda like what OKC is doing right now).

Now with Jackson, that's the dimension that I like especially when we talk about offense. Anybody recall seeing Jefferson handle the ball in pick and roll situations? or him posting a guy up? Or create shots for others? The assists that Jefferson always have is simply by moving the ball to the next guy in line for a 3 point shot. But he hardly ever makes plays for others. That is the versatility that we were looking for when we traded for Jefferson, and IMO still need since we traded George Hill and lost TJ Ford.

Even before the addition of Jackson, I've complained about how not having Ford made us so reliant on Gary Neal handling the ball and creating for others because he's the only one who has the skill set to do it. I'll say that versatility helps the Spurs because now we have guys who can create instead of role players who needs someone else to create for them. And since I thought we needed someone who can create on the team outside of the big 3 and gary neal, hell yes Jackson is a great addition. No matter what the stats says.

The reason I even bothered posting so much about this is because many Spurs fans on here were lying about Jefferson and playing revisionist historian. I decided to correct them because there was way too much Jefferson bashing when he was part of a 61 win team last year. I don't know about all of you, but I was really excited to watch the Spurs again for the first time since 2008. At the same time, there was a deluge of overhype about Jackson, despite poor stats this year. So I posted some stuff about each guy.

it isn't an "agenda" either. I've noticed people with horrible failing arguments love to throw out labels to discredit the other opinion. Unfortunately for you, just because you label something, does not make it so. I have no agenda besides to speak the truth and spread factual information. Perhaps at the same time prevent some baseless bashing on a guy who played well here and some overrating before any accomplishments have been had.

You guys hated RJ because you expected more and he had a high salary. I get it. But he was far from a bad player like is being claimed. You guys are the only ones with agendas here. Stop bashing guys just because they're gone. Different isn't always better, that's the message.


I agree. I think we expected more out of Jefferson. I, myself, was a victim of that especially knowing that we needed a guy who can create and instead got a guy who turned himself simply into a spot up shooter. I hated Jefferson so much in his first year. It was this summer when guys are talking about amnestying Jefferson no matter who we can get in the FA market. Saying things like he just sucks. I remember guys saying Leonard is already better. While that is probably true now, but no way you can really say that Leonard was ready for a starting role at the time. And we didn't have any backup SF. I started defending Jefferson at the time because even if he's not what we were expecting, he was still our best option there.

My argument on keeping Jefferson was that if we forget about what we expected out of him and just focus on what he's giving us right now, he's still solid. He's basically a post-injury Sean Elliott. Dependable 3 point shooter, decent defender. That's all Sean Elliott was after his injury. And that Sean Elliott was still a solid player, even if he wasn't a star anymore.

Return to San Antonio Spurs