inDe_eD wrote:BombsquadSammy wrote:inDe_eD wrote:Seems like a no-brainer with Mills, right? He's such a Spur and he really plays the right way for this team. Definitely agree that we need to see him in a starting role for an extended amount of time. I think Pop's gonna be hard pressed not to though with the way he saved our bacon last night. I think Parker can be the good guy here too. Whenever he talks about Timmy, he mentions how cool it was that TD handed the reins to Manu who then handed them to him. Well, it's your turn now Tony: hand it over to Mills by asking Pop to go to the bench.
I think the big issue is whether he can run an offense, but really, Parker hasn't a great facilitator in his first few seasons, either; Pop even used to remark that Parker got the starting nod because he was a scoring guard, not because he was a terrific facilitator. Mills already has a leg up on him in that regard, having been in the system for so many years.
I like your reasoning about Parker taking a lesser role, too. There MUST be something Pop knows that we don't, though, as it seems like he should've had that conversation with Tony a long time ago.
Good point, thinking about it, I don't know how I feel about Mills being our facilitator, I guess I'm hoping we don't need a major facilitator with Kawhi playing some point forward and him/LMA iso'ing so often, but I could be way off on that. I just really love his the shooting/off-ball play/defense that he brings to the table.
Well, LMA's never going to be a great iso guy because he's too in love with his jumper, and Kawhi seems to have regressed heavily in his effectiveness on isolations this year, but we don't want to be an iso-heavy team, anyhow. There are only a handful of players who can make iso work consistently enough to win close game,s and we don't have any of them on our team. Mills doesn't need to be Stockton, but we need some modicum of playmaking out there.
I was really hoping Parker would have made a more noticeable transition to pass-first play, but it just hasn't happened. Gasol hasn't had the impact I thought he would on ball movement, either, so the net result is that we just don't have the versatility and fluidity we've had in years past. Tony's decline as a scorer means teams can pressure him more, as he just doesn't have the passing chops to take advantage of defensive imbalances, and Duncan's absence is showing itself massively on the offensive side. We knew his D would be missed, but people underestimate how significant it was that he knew the offense so well and how good he was at help offense (screening, drawing defenders, etc.).
inDe_eD wrote:More thoughts re: Pop & Tony, I guess the loyalty is one of the things I truly adore about the Spurs, and it's what separates the organization from other truly elite organizations like say the NFL Patriots. If Bellichick was in Pop's shoes, Tony would have been traded last year. Instead, Pop talks about how hard it was to trade George Hill every time the trade comes up (seriously, Bellichick probably doesn't remember even half of the players he's cut ties with). If Pop felt like that about Hill, I can only imagine what kind of feelings he has towards Parker, who he in some ways raised like a son. I think the plan was always to have Parker on a Duncan/Manu-like diminishing but effective per minute role, but he just fell off a cliff instead. So, I don't know, probably a lot of human feelings clouding the right basketball move. Even though I'd really like to see Tony benched, I just can't fault Pop.
Well, it's an interesting dynamic. I absolutely agree that the franchise's loyalty and values are what set us apart, but it's intriguing, how often Pop's been lauded over the years for treating the 1st guy and the 13th guy exactly the same; it's one of the most oft-discussed aspects of his coaching style, and for good reason. The paradox is that it doesn't seem to extend equally past the bounds of the court, i.e. scaling back Parker's role on the team if he can't produce the same anymore.
We'll just have to see what happens, but I think it's pretty obvious that Tony's legacy is what's keeping him here. I don't have an issue with that-- he's been arguably the second-best Spur of the Duncan era, and that's saying something--, but in my opinion, loyalty-at-all-costs should only be reserved for a very select class of players, and as important as he's been to us, he's not indispensable.
