Wednesday, October 13th, 2010...9:05 am
Should the Spurs keep Curtis Jerrells?
We expected this from Alonzo Gee. He was the D-League Rookie of the Year and Spurs summer league standout. He’s a wing player, a position where the Spurs are short on everything — shooting, defense, athleticism, and length. But so far this preseason, Gee can’t find the court. Instead, his former Austin Toros teammate Curtis Jerrells is using training camp as a career stepping stone. Jerrells is one of the Spurs’ most productive players this preseason.
And last night, Jerrells sparked the Spurs to victory against the Clippers.
Jerrels entered the game with 2:34 remaining in the third. The score was 63-78, bad guys. Jerrells grabbed the reigns and led the Spurs offensively and defensively for the remainder of the contest. In 15 minutes, Jerrells had 11 points, three assists, a steal, and a variety of timely shots, whether from deep or near the hoop. And he continues to play surprisingly good on-the-ball defense. Jerrells finished the game +14.
I’m not sure what to make of Jerrells’ preseason, other than the obvious. He’s better than we expected. He played well in summer league, but not exceptionally well. But other than DeJuan Blair and Tim Duncan, Jerrells has had the best preseason of any Spur. Curtis Jerrells, the kid from Baylor. The Austin Toros project.
What’s most surprising about Jerrells’ transformation into an NBA-quality player is that he wasn’t anything approaching a point guard in college. Last season, Toros head coach Quin Snyder “made” Jerrells into a point guard, but he mostly looked like a shooting guard barking sets. Credit Snyder and Jerrells for putting in the work, because Jerrells should be on an NBA roster. The question is, will he make the Spurs’ roster? The answer isn’t as obvious.
What Jerrells has going for him is a good preseason, especially as an unexpectedly competent defender and 3-point shooter. Those are things the Spurs like, right? But on the other side of the ledger is a longer list of complicating factors. The Spurs want to keep 13 or 14 players, but not 15. Gregg Popovich has previously expressed confidence in fellow camp hopeful Garrett Temple. The Spurs are weak at wing, not at point guard — Tony Parker, George Hill and Manu Ginobili provide enough depth at the point. If the Spurs cut Jerrells, there is a chance they can still monitor his progress in Austin because of the D-League’s arrangement between NBA teams and their affiliates.
As the title of this post indicates, I doubt the last of these is still an option. Jerrells will play for a high quality professional team this season. If not in the NBA, then elsewhere. There are rumors that Jerrells will play for Partizan Belgrade if the Spurs elect to cut him. Whatever the case, the Jerrells situation is unexpected and curious.
54 Comments
October 13th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Thanks for the article. What do you do? Is Temple hurt worse than not being reported?
I thought for sure that Temple would be a shoe in. Now I’m not so sure. If the Spurs think they have what it takes at the wing with Jefferson, Simmons and Anderson. Which I’m sure Anderson will be that GF combo that Pop has been wanting for a while. I don’t see room on the team for Temple if he can’t prove to be more useful than what Jerrells is proving now.
Is there any way that the Spurs could trade Jerrells for another player that might be of more use for the Spurs (SF/PF) prior to the season starting if Jerrells maintains these good performances?
October 13th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Not related, but there is a great article on Gregg Popovich at NBA FanHouse. I am sure you guys can add a lot of anecdotes to it.
My Favourite, “He is Manu Ginobili”
October 13th, 2010 at 9:54 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by San Antonio Spurs, David C. Reyna and Timothy Varner, Andrew A. McNeill. Andrew A. McNeill said: 48MoH / Should the Spurs keep Curtis Jerrells? http://dlvr.it/6zVSP [...]
October 13th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Partizan just signed Celtics cut Olivier Lafayette, they don”t need Jarrells anymore.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yes, the Spurs should keep CJ and cut Temple. I’m not sure what happened to Temple, but he doesn’t even look like a basketball player out there. He can’t dribble, pass or shoot. I know he suffered the injury during the SL, but his drop off has been astounding.
Jerrells has been so good that I think we’d be ok in losing Temple.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:44 am
drop temple. keep jerrells… please.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am
It is rather odd that Jerrels, not Temple, has played more minutes this preseason - almost twice the minutes.
You can take that one of two ways. Either Pop isn’t playing Temple because he’s already assured he has what it takes to make the squad, or he’s leaning toward Jerrels.
Since the beginning of camp, I’ve always thought it would come down to Jerrels OR Temple, being that they are both PG’s. And going into camp, Temple had he upper hand - he was the starting PG for the summer league team till he got hurt and the newly appointed “favorite player” of Pop.
Maybe, just maybe, we keep both and jettison Simmons? I’m confused now…..
TP
Manu
TD
Dejuan
RJ
Bonner
Hill
Anderson
Neal
Splitter
McDyess
Temple
Jerrels
?
Neal, Temple, Jerrels, and Simmons….who’s the odd man out?
October 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
…..or we keep all 4 and carry 14?
October 13th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
@Tyler
I would keep all 14 of them and stash Gist,Gee,Cousin with the Toros. Cousin is must have in Austin.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Tyler
October 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am
“Neal, Temple, Jerrels, and Simmons….who’s the odd man out?”
I take it you’ve assumed that both Gist & Cousin will either be cut or sent to Austin. Neal is getting close to securing a spot on the roster now that Penney is already gone. Simmons has not yet distinguished himself with his play, and so remains on the bubble because we would prefer a veteran, true SF on the roster to back-up RJ. The primary confusion comes into play because Temple showed what he can do at the end of last season, and Jerrells has out-performed expectations during camp/preseason. It would also be HIGHLY unlikely to see both Temple & Jerrell’s on the roster, even if we ended up cutting Simmons.
As a young player, I don’t think Temple’s injury has helped him this camp/preseason. Right now he looks rusty & lacking confidence. However for me, because neither Temple or Jerrell’s could expect to see much Spur court-time this season, the big question is, which one of them has the most potential at the NBA level over the next 2-3 years?
And of course, that’s not an easy question. Clearly both of them are borderline NBA-level players right now, with appreciable upside remaining over the next few years. In my view, skill-wise they’re fairly equal overall (shooting, defense, play-making). So for me, what it ultimately comes down to is which one has an advantage in physical attributes that could enable him to elevate his game the most at the NBA level in the near future? And the fact is Temple is essentially as quick as Jerrell’s but has much more length for a guard. Jerrell’s is lucky if he’s 6′ tall, while Temple is a good 6’5″ with an impressive wingspan. It’s hard to be “really” good at the NBA level if you’re short for your position AND your speed/quickness is underwhelming. And that’s really the situation Jerrell’s is in.
Bottom-line: as long as Temple makes a push in some of the remaining 4 preseason games (which I think he will), he makes the roster. And that would mean that if Jerrell’s continues to impress, we may more quickly than expected lose him to another organization, which if nothing else, could be a blow to the Toro’s this season.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
We could keep all 14, but I know that right now the Spurs are VERY strict, cautious & prudent as it relates to financial considerations/obligations as we head into the new CBA, and the continued uncertainty about a TP free agency on the horizon. So no doubt the Spurs have some big decisions on their hands in the next 10 days or so.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I don’t really care who keep of Temple or Jerrells. Their both unlikely to contribute much this season and their both gambles to ever give us meaningful minutes. I don’t want to keep both because I think we have enough guards. I trust Pop to pick the one he thinks suits us better.
I’m pretty sure Neal makes it so we have
G - Parker, Manu, Hill, Neal, Curtis/Temple
G/F - Anderson
SF - RJ
PF/C - TD, Blair, Splitter, McDyess, Bonner
This leaves 1-2 spots for Simmons, Gist, Cousin, Curtis/Temple. If we rule out more guards then I think you have to take Simmons or Gist because of lack of 3 depth (Gist could potentially have some versatiltiy as a spread the floor PF). I don’t think Gist makes it so I’m guessing Simmons and we stick with 13.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
The other reason keeping both Temple & Jerrells is at least somewhat problematic is because that would give us EIGHT guards on the roster. That’s really not ideal in my view, especially when you have just THREE talented guards that are going to soak up most of the minutes. Five guards carrying the water is not a great idea (Anderson could get time at the SF, but I would prefer to focus his development at the SG where most of his upside resides). It might be different if one or two of them were highly talented but only 19-20 years old, with plenty of time to mature & develop, but Temple is 24, and Jerrells will be 24 in February. Both of them need some NBA game-time development relatively soon or their full potential could be partially squandered.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@Jim
Yes, I’m operating under the assumption that Gist and Cousins will be living it up on 6th Street next year (hopefully).
Like I said, I too always though it was an either/or situation with Jerrels and Temple. But now? I’m not too sure.
One last point that further confuses me: Simmons hasn’t shown much (I’m going strictly on reports, being that I haven’t had a chance to catch any games.). And with what Anderson has shown defensively (by all reports he’s surprised in that respect ), doesn’t this make Simmons more expendable? Unless the coaching staff has seen something else in practice or is convinced he’s going to be a great locker room presence (which may be the case, just speculating here) I think he’s as likely to be cut as Jerrels or Temple.
Also, the CBA isn’t up till after this season. so as long as we aren’t doling out multi-year, guaranteed contracts, it shouldn’t affect how many players we keep right now. It will affect our lux tax payment however…..
October 13th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
We need another center…BADLY!
October 13th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I agree that Simmons is still on the bubble because of his undistinguished play to this point. If he ends up close though I’d like to see him get the benefit of the doubt because he potentially fills a real need as a true back-up SF (and more than half of the preseason games remain for him to make a better impression). Anderson has given limited signs that as a rookie he may have the potential to swing over to the SF spot (which is nice), but I’d rather see a veteran true SF there, and I’d also prefer to develop Anderson more at the SG from the get-go because that’s where he might even have all-star potential at some point, possibly sooner than anyone might expect, you never know.
Your point about the CBA is correct, but did Neal get more than one year guaranteed? If so, that’s the type of deal that the Spurs would probably need to avoid with Jerrells and/or Temple at this point.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Blofeld
October 13th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“We need anothercenter…BADLY!”
I wouldn’t mind signing Mbenga to the vet minimum.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I thought he had an almost zero percent chance to make the roster. Now, I think we “need” him, a guy who can run the offense and be a go to scorer in blowouts or in case of injuries. He is showing a lot more value than Temple and Gee at this point.
Duncan, Parker, Manu, Blair, Hill, Bonner, Splitter, Anderson, and RJ are all locks. Nine spots filled.
Neal is easily removed from the roster but will have the early regular season to prove himself. Dice (our best trade-able asset without sacrificing championship hopes as unlikely as a trade is) is just a great guy for the team and barring a crazy trade will be on the team. Simmons probably is in a similar boat to Neal at this point. That’s 12 spots out of the max 15 going into the regular season filled.
That leaves Gist, Gee, Temple, Jerrells, and Cousin. If any of these guys aren’t going to be Spurs, we likely want them in Austin. The Spurs could possibly help arrange a deal for Gist to play overseas if they want to give him one more year to develop.
The final three cuts will become Toros players if those players agree to D-League contracts. To me Cousin is the roughest player, but I also think the Spurs see something in him and could definitely use another big on the Toros. He should be cut.
I think the Spurs should cut whichever player of Gist or Gee they are more comfortable losing to another team. The other player along with Jerrells and Temple get Spurs contracts with the high possibility they will be spending major time in Austin.
As we evaluate Neal, Simmons, Anderson, and Splitter in terms of what they bring to the team this season, we can adjust the roster appropriately, either through trades, buyouts, or Austin assignments.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Ty Lawson, Nate Robinson, Earl Boykins all have the advantage of playing for teams thin at the PG position, Blair has the same positional depth advantage, but of course these guys are mostly considered exceptional talents.
As I have stated elsewhere, Jerrels has earned a spot, and the truth is Pop loves having depth at PG, and loves having a true PG as backup… the truth is Hill is played mostly next to Manu or Tony as a wing… Spurs fans have trouble accepting this as a fact, because of his lack of length. I think Jerrels makes it over Temple.
One question is still Simmons, who I also think Pop will choose over Temple. The other question is Cousin.
Gee and Gist are likely gone. Temple is neck and neck with the other two guys, but Simmons is one less rookie for Pop, and we don’t need guards, so both he and Cousin have an advantage there.
I wanted to Temple to shine. But if he is outshined by Anderson, Jerrels, and Neal so be it. If he is outshined by Cousin, hopefully that is because Cousin starts to suprise everybody. If neither he nor Bobby play all that well, advantage Simmons.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@Jim
Gary Neal is guaranteed this year, but not the next two years.
October 13th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
so, im pretty sure curtis j makes the team cause he spent practically the whole summer with chip (or some other coach of ours) transitioning his game into being a combo guard at 1 and 2. Whoever are the odd men out, i’m gonna go with the rumor that we would trade our first pick for wilson chandler, and we would have to trade on player to do so, and i think someone goes, i just cant choose who…
October 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Did Anderson play minutes at the 3 last night? If Pop feels comfortable with Anderson at the 3, it will affect the roster.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
my guess is that Jerrells makes it.
Gee and Gist get let go, followed by temple, cousin, or simmons.
Given that Simmons has little upside, and that barring injury to RJ, Simmons’ defense is not likely to be a difference-maker come play-off time, I’d prefer Temple… although it’s very easy to make the case that the spurs don’t need Temple (the 13th guy on our roster)
October 13th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I’m betting that Jerrells has won a spot if he plays well in the next two or three preseason games. Neal has a full contract. Jerrells actually has looked better than Hill. The Spurs could use a sixth guard and they need a forward who can play the three or four especially on defense. That would be Simmons. My guess is Duncan, Ginobli, Parker, McDyess, Bonner,Blair, Jefferson, Anderson, Neal, Hill, Splitter, Jerrells and Simmons. That’s the 13 called for by the front office and it looks pretty good to me.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Something just doesn’t add up to me. Going into Summer League play, Temple was considered to be a virtual lock to make the roster considering how well he played for the Spurs when Parker was out last spring. Of course he gets injured in the first game and we’ve heard virtually nothing from or about him in two months. During the first 3 preseason games, Temple has played a grand TOTAL of 22 minutes. My thesis: We aren’t being told that Temple is still not 100%.
If Temple were 100%, we wouldn’t be having a Temple vs. Jerrells debate. With all respect to Curtis, he’s only played well in two preseason games. This is not enough, IMO, to put him ahead of Temple. Besides, Jerrells is a 6’1″ combo guard. How many more do we really need on this team. We don’t need another scorer in the backcourt. We need a defender, distributor, and decent shooter all of which Temple can provide. Furthermore, you can teach a lot of things, but you can’t teach size and Temple certainly has that at the PG spot.
Jim Henderson
October 13th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
“I agree that Simmons is still on the bubble because of his undistinguished play to this point.”
Jim, I agree to an extent. Simmons hasn’t been shooting lights out and therefore hasn’t scored much, but he’s found other ways to get involved like rebounding and assists. I wish he were showing us more, but I think he’ll make the cut simply due the fact that there’s no one else who’s ready to play backup SF. Physically speaking Anderson is the closest to being a SF, but do we want a rookie playing 15-18 min every game?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Hobson13
October 13th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
“do we want a rookie playing 15-18 min every game?”
Yes.
Never mind John Wall, DMC, Tyeke Evans… never mind Brandon Roy, never mind Tony Parker, or even Mike Miller… granted none of those rookies played to win the Finals…
But, as you noted we do not have great prospects for the backup SF. What’s more, Simmons and even RJ aren’t gonna be assets as much as they are there to mitigate the bleeding against teams with talented wings… our strength, talent, and depth is at every other position.
We would love to see rookies come in and play well enough to earn 18mpg! Not mentioning Tiago Splitter or the fact that Blair should have had a larger role last year, Anderson was picked 20, and may well be capable of making a dozen GMs looks stupid. TP went 28th. Anderson is only gonna hurt other teams if he plays. We need whatever weapons we can get. We don’t need JA to close out games, but we sure could use him to cause serious trouble while he’s out there. Simmons sure isn’t gonna upset any opposing coaches or players… if Mr. Anderson gets the minutes he just might.
And if we, uh, don’t manage to win it all this year, all the more reason to develop the young man!
October 13th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
It very well could play out like this:
PG: Parker, (Jerrells/Temple)
SG: Hill, Ginobili, Neal
SF: Jefferson, Anderson, Simmons
PF: Blair, McDyess, Bonner
C: Duncan, Splitter
Somebody is needed at point for the Toros. The rest of pre-seaon may be needed to determine who will be that PG.
And I’m not necessarily of the opinion that Jerrells height would be a negative. Though height is important at the wing and post…there have been some very succesful (smaller in height) PG’s to play in this league. Especially in the back up role.
But Temple was playing better last year and even in to the SL action until his injury. Something tells me he’s not back to 100% from that. But a decision will have to be made between the two for I don’t think both would be kept on the Spurs roster. IMO the better player to keep is the healthy player. Though I would prefer Temple if it were the Temple prior to his SL injury.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Hobson13
October 13th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
My earlier posts clearly suggests that we’re pretty much in agreement concerning both the Temple/Jerrells issue, and the prospects for Simmons. The following sample of excerpts confirms this point:
“As a young player, I don’t think Temple’s injury has helped him this camp/preseason. Right now he looks rusty & lacking confidence. However for me, because neither Temple or Jerrell’s could expect to see much Spur court-time this season, the big question is, which one of them has the most potential at the NBA level over the next 2-3 years?……
……So for me, what it ultimately comes down to is which one has an advantage in physical attributes that could enable him to elevate his game the most at the NBA level in the near future? And the fact is Temple is essentially as quick as Jerrell’s but has much more length for a guard. Jerrell’s is lucky if he’s 6′ tall, while Temple is a good 6’5″ with an impressive wingspan. It’s hard to be “really” good at the NBA level if you’re short for your position AND your speed/quickness is underwhelming. And that’s really the situation Jerrell’s is in.”
“I agree that Simmons is still on the bubble because of his undistinguished play to this point. If he ends up close though I’d like to see him get the benefit of the doubt because he potentially fills a real need as a true back-up SF (and more than half of the preseason games remain for him to make a better impression).”
And Hobson, I agree with your point about not being so willing to jump on the Jerrells bandwagon by mere virtue of the last TWO PRESEASON games. Let’s not forget that Temple just 6 months ago played significant minutes in THIRTEEN games toward the end of our REGULAR SEASON while we were battling for a playoff spot and performed admirably. Leaning toward dumping Temple at this point, while not completely analogous, would suggest that we also consider dumping Hill because Jerrells has outperformed him overall in our 3 preseason games. The point is, a roster spot cannot be effectively determined by looking at two preseason games in a vacuum. You have to consider Temple’s NBA experience and also what he’s done in ALL of our practices since he’s been with us. Also, as I’ve noted, I’m in agreement with Hobson on the size advantage of Temple, as well as the fact that he appears to be the better & more versatile defender (a prime need of ours), and Hobson may also be correct that Temple has not been fully healthy, otherwise Temple’s utter lack of playing time during the first three preseason games is entirely inexplicable.
This is not to say that Jerrells does not have a legitimate chance. He does — but to suggest that he has a clear edge at this point (as some on this thread contend) is jumping to conclusions in my view. In fact, if there is an edge, it most likely still resides with Temple at this point of the battle. After all, there’s nothing to suggest that Temple is anything but a quick study & a hard worker in practice, and yet he’s averaged less than 10 minutes per game this preseason. So until this quandary is resolved, either by more minutes for Temple or an injury status update, in my view it should be presumed that Temple still holds an edge over Jerrells.
As far as Simmons, I’m not too impressed at this early stage with his overall play, but I’d still give him an inside track at making the roster. I think he will become more comfortable in the next 4 games, and his performance will improve. That said, I don’t think he has a lock on a spot just yet.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
td4life
October 13th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“We would love to see rookies come in and play well enough to earn 18mpg!”
The question remains, is Anderson good enough to play out of position as a rookie and still command 18 mpg. in a playoff situation —- because that’s what we need. I think his chances are probably better (though still not that good) at earning his 18 mpg. at his natural position — SG.
“Simmons sure isn’t gonna upset any opposing coaches or players… if Mr. Anderson gets the minutes he just might.”
That’s an assumption on your part. Simmon’s has been a 16 ppg. starter in this league, and he’s still only 30 years old. He’s lost some of his explosiveness from injury, but the jury’s still out as to how much. As far as Anderson, MOST 20th+ picks don’t ever amount to very much, and we simply don’t know yet what Anderson will actually provide, or how quickly.
rob
October 13th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“And I’m not necessarily of the opinion that Jerrells height would be a negative. Though height is important at the wing and post…there have been some very succesful (smaller in height) PG’s to play in this league. Especially in the back up role.”
The point is, everything else being equal, most coaches are going to take size at ANY position, in ANY role. Overall, I think Temple & Jerrells are fairly equal, but Temple has a clear size advantage.
” IMO the better player to keep is the healthy player.”
But why? It’s not like Temple has some SERIOUS health issue. As a result, for a 13th spot on the roster, the health difference should not even be a factor in the decision.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I’m pretty sure hill will be double the player temple or jerrels once the season starts. Pop probably wanted hill to complement the rest of the players while on the court, in order for those trying to make the roster to get the most out of their tryout game. Jerrels has been outperformin manu and tony as well, we wouldn’t cut thosw two either.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Jim Henderson
October 13th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Well said. I agree.
td4life
October 13th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“We would love to see rookies come in and play well enough to earn 18mpg! Not mentioning Tiago Splitter or the fact that Blair should have had a larger role last year, Anderson was picked 20, and may well be capable of making a dozen GMs looks stupid.”
TD, I’d love if Anderson was good enough to play 18min/game. However, this is not the same situation Blair was in last year. Last year (when Blair averaged 18min/game) he was not relied upon for production. Duncan, McDyess, and Bonner were all ahead of Blair on the big man depth chart. If we made Anderson the backup SF, we would be RELYING on him to play 18min/game whether we played the Nets or the Lakers. Can we rely on Anderson to have 18 solid minutes of production as a rookie? I don’t know if we can. Again, if Anderson is that good, then I’d be ecstatic. However, he has much to prove. I say keep Simmons for the vet min. (pretty cheap insurance) and bring Anderson along slowly, splitting minutes at the SF and SG positions.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Since apparently TD, TP, Manu and Hill are not going to go to Pittsburg for the Cavs game, the minutes for all the second teamers and rookies will go sky high. I think we will get a much truer picture of exactly who has game and who doesn’t after this game. If a player doesn’t get minutes in this game you can safely assume he is gone.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Hobson and Henderson-
I was just answering the question “do we WANT a rookie playing 15-18 min every game?”
The answer is yes, because it would mean that we have one heck of a rookie, and that said rookie is getting valuable experience. I believe Pop will give Simmons every chance, and maybe more chance than he deserves. But wether we see Temple, Jerrels, or Simmons (or any two of those three) Pop will have lots of options beside RELYING on Anderson out of necessity. Going back to the Derek Anderson days after Bowen’s playoff injury in Dallas, Pop has shown a willingness to go with 3 guards… we will see Hill and even Neal play the SF spot this coming year. Of course Anderson is a SG anyway, but Pop doesn’t care about size as much as you guys do. On the other hand, Bonner may take a D Ferry role as well. Of all the choices, Anderson has probably has the most upside, I just don’t know that Pop will be trusting enough to go with him over Simmons… what we WANT is to see Anderson force his hand by being too good.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:00 am
4, 3, 5, 1, 2, the game has expanded beyond these roles… its all about who can ball.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Jim Henderson
I don’t doubt what you say. For the most part am in agreement regarding wanting size.
But how serious is Temple’s injury? What has been keeping him from playing like last season and SL prior to his injury? I’m all for Temple making the team if it’s the Temple prior to his injury. But if Jerrells is proving through his play that he should be kept then all I have to go by is what’s being produced on the court. At this time regarding depth of the team…Jerrells is proving to be kept over Temple.
Heck…I’d hate to see either go because b/u PG has been a weakness of this team for a while. And though Hill and Manu perform admirably in that role…they’re also taken out of positions which they would perform best for this team when having to play PG.
October 14th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Anderson has looked a lot bigger and stronger than I expected (especially having been out with his injury for so long in terms of his strength). I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch for him to take minutes behind RJ with two other guards on the court.
For everyone who says CJ hasn’t done anything but look good in two preseason games, you’re selling him way short. He also looked good in summer league and the D League. He was awesome in the DL semis against the Vipers.
Temple to me is an end of the rotation player. CJ has a natural scoring ability. He has clearly added some defense and leadership skills to that. He is a guy who you can put in when you are 15 down in the third, and think you aren’t just throwing the towel in. I don’t ever see Temple being that guy even if he is more useful in the overall rotation.
Last point which I hate to bring up, Temple may complement Manu, Hill, and Parker better than CJ, but what if Parker was to leave after this season? I think CJ with 2 years in the Spurs/Toros system and a natural scoring ability would help us as we transition more than Temple. Personally, I want both to make the team at this point. We can always find minutes for either or both of them in Austin.
October 14th, 2010 at 5:54 am
No matter who we keep, I think it’s apparent that we have several legit, young NBA-caliber players to choose from as opposed to the last few year. IMO, there’s more young talent in the system than ever. Whether that’s by design or necessity (or both), I think the team is on more solid footing than it’s been the past few years. Neal, Temple, Jerrels, Anderson - all of these guys should be in the NBA.
And to touch on BlasE’s last point, if both Temple and Jerrels continue to show they belong, I think the FO would look hard at signing both, and keeping one in Austin, or even rotating between them between Austin and SA.
Also - to touch on the “Is the D-League Worth It” debate - if Jerrels and Temple prove to be solid contributors, I’d have to answer “yes” to that question. Even though Temple didn’t come up through Austin, the fact he came through the D-League shows that with the right player in the right situation, you can find NBA rotation guys.
October 14th, 2010 at 10:54 am
td4life
October 13th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
“……Pop has shown a willingness to go with 3 guards… we will see Hill and even Neal play the SF spot this coming year.”
I hope not. I hate 3 guard line-ups. We’re already undersized enough as it is for the team as a whole, and I don’t think that we’re athletic enough to occasionally and effectively exploit small line-ups anyway. Plus, it really doesn’t fit our relatively deliberate and methodical style. If Pop felt like he had enough “bigs” that could match up effectively, and a tough, scrappy, consistent SF, he would be happy to stay away from 3-guard BS. He only does that to create mismatches using his most talented players, but the fact is “sufficient/normal” size generally ends up winning in the NBA. 3-guard line-ups are in a way an act of desperation.
“I just don’t know that Pop will be trusting enough to go with him over Simmons… what we WANT is to see Anderson force his hand by being too good.”
Yes, but since our need is a back-up SF that can deliver in a reserve role in the playoffs, it’s probably more realistic to hope that the veteran Simmons adequately fills that role this year. And if possible, I’d rather see Anderson challenge Hill for minutes at the shooting guard.
Heavy in the paint
October 14th, 2010 at 1:00 am
“4, 3, 5, 1, 2, the game has expanded beyond these roles… its all about who can ball.”
Yes, but size & match-ups matter.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:33 am
BlaseE
October 14th, 2010 at 5:12 am
“For everyone who says CJ hasn’t done anything but look good in two preseason games, you’re selling him way short. He also looked good in summer league and the D League. He was awesome in the DL semis against the Vipers.”
I’m not saying that Jerrells isn’t a good player, but the DL is a clear step below NBA level, and NBA preseason is a step below NBA regular season. Jerrells has not played a regular season game at the NBA level. Temple has, and has put up respectable 36 mpg numbers in 27 games (averaging 12.4 mpg.) of 14.7 ppg., 3.3 rpg., 2.3 apg., 1.4 spg., 35% from three, with 13 of those games with the Spurs just 6 months ago. At age 24, Temple is not suddenly a worse player even though he’s going through a rough patch at present. I don’t mind trying to keep him in Austin, and give him a stint with the Spurs if needed, but as of right now I would keep Temple on the Spur roster, not both he and Jerrells, because we don’t need more than six guards on the roster.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
6 guards doesn’t seem like a bad number…
You have a max 15 roster spots so that could break down to 3 PG’s, 6 wings, and 6 front court in a perfect world.
Our 5 deep front court already begs the question of minute distribution. Manu, Hill, and Tony can all play off of a PG as a 2 guard because they can all score. Manu and Hill can both guard multiple positions as well. With our lack of SF’s and possibility of having a full time guard in training in Austin, I think having 7 guards (Manu, Parker, Hill, Anderson, Neal, Temple, and Jerrells) is not a bad thing. Jerrells and Parker are the only two of the 5 who should absolutely not be guarding SF’s.
Many of us (myself included) thought Gee would be a roster lock. I don’t see why switching him for Jerrells is a bad option after seeing how Jerrells has developed.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
No offense to Jerrells (he’s played well), but I’d rather have another “big” on the roster than another 6′ guard. To my well-chronicled dismay (e.g., Amundson - for which we apparently made no effort to obtain), apparently the FO does not agree.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I think they should probably cut Cousin, Gee, and Temple.
Pop has said they would keep 13-14, and cutting those three gets them down to 14.
PG- Parker, Hill, Jerrells
SG- Ginobili, Anderson, Neal
SF- Jefferson, Simmons, Gist
PF- Duncan, Blair, McDyess
C- Splitter, Bonner
October 14th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Everything south of USA is Latin America. Argentena is a basketball country . They have a gold metal.
October 14th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
We should keep Jerrells becuase we don’t have a backup PG. Our roster should look like this…..
PG - Parker, Hill - sp, Jerrells
SG - Hill, Ginobili, Neal, Anderson, Temple
SF - Jefferson, Anderson - sp, Ginobili - sp
PF - Duncan, Mcdyess, Blair
C - Splitter, Blair - sp, Bonner
*sp means SECONDARY POSITION
Parker, Hill, RJ, Duncan, Splitter should be our starters. Manu and Blair are the first guys off the bench. We basically took off Cousin, Gist and Simmons. Cousin was impressive but we don’t have any more space. Gist and Simmons failed.
I think we should keep Temple because he can defend and score (BTW, he’s main position is SG). Anderson should get more minutes as RJ’s backup, and Blair would get more minutes than Tiago even though he comes off the bench.
October 15th, 2010 at 11:47 am
timanutony21209
October 14th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
“We should keep Jerrells becuase we don’t have a backup PG.”
Hill is our back-up point guard, and Temple should be there for insurance! Jerrells is a scoring point guard just like TP, Hill, and Temple, but is probably the worst defender of the three. He offers no real advantage. Simmons has not yet been overly impressive, but has not failed. He should probably make the team because he’s a veteran true SF that is pretty good at “D” and the 3-point shot.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The George Hill PG experiement should end. Whoever is playing the best at the end of preseason should be getting regular minutes at b/u PG whether that be Jerrells or Temple.
Temple proved to be a better pg than Hill in limited action last year. Hill would be better suited for this team to start at SG alongside Parker at point.
Anderson is being played often at the 3 as I suspected before the season started.
I’ll state it again. I think the lineup will eventually be formed like this:
PG: Parker, (Temple or Jerrells depending on who performs better in preseason)
SG: Hill, Ginobili, Neal (Anderson with some time here)
SF: Jefferson, Anderson, Simmons
PF: Blair, McDyess, Bonner
C: Duncan, Splitter
Hill or Ginobili could still play PG depending on the situation. And that gives you the 13 (14 if the team desides to keep both Jerrells and Temple). But Jerrells or Temple (I think) could still be exchanged back and forth from the Toros.
To be honest…I would rather have Temple if Temple could be the performer and promise he was before his injury. But if that doesn’t look like the case and Jerrells is still out performing Temple by the end of preseason…I would have to select Jerrells to be on the team.
October 15th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
rob
October 15th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“The George Hill PG experiement should end.”
I disagree. Hill is completely competent as a back-up point in a Spurs system.
“Hill would be better suited for this team to start at SG alongside Parker at point.”
No, he would be better as the back-up PG & SG because that’s what he is: a pretty, but not overly talented “combo guard”. He’s not a starting SG, and he’s not a starting PG. He’s a very good combo guard. He should be in the game in reserve to spell TP & Manu alternately, with more of his minutes with Manu. We should limit the 6’1″ back court combo pairings. TP should be paired more with Anderson & Neal, Hill with Manu, and maybe Neal or Temple sometimes.
“Anderson is being played often at the 3 as I suspected before the season started.”
Only because of our obvious overload of 1/2 guards, and our still to be determined depth at the SF.
And again, at this point here’s our best line-up:
TP, Hill, Temple
Manu, Anderson, Neal (some Hill)
RJ, Simmons (some Anderson)
Blair, McDyess, Bonner
Duncan, Splitter
That’s 13, and probably all that we should keep in SA at any one time (unless we ever want to sign a “real” back-up “big”, i.e., a not too old veteran with height AND weight, or is a very good “shot-blocker” - of course being a decent post defender is also a given).
If it ever makes sense to bring up Cousin, Jerrells, Gist, Gee, etc. from Austin we can do that.
October 15th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Jim Henderson
“Only because of our obvious overload of 1/2 guards, and our still to be determined depth at the SF.”
I don’t think that is true. I think Anderson was plugged to play SG/SF as you mentioned. But I believe trying him out at SF taking precedence over using him at the two is by plan more than by attrition.
“TP, Hill, Temple
Manu, Anderson, Neal (some Hill)
RJ, Simmons (some Anderson)
Blair, McDyess, Bonner
Duncan, Splitter”
I can live with that if that is the way it plays out. As I said before…Hill and Manu have both played PG. I just think that if Temple or Jerrells proves to be better at PG than Hill…(which Temple has done)…pairing both Hill and Parker in the line up has proven to be a very effective combination as well.
Also, Manu has already stated that he likes coming off the bench (or at least doesn’t mind not starting). And his presence and leadership on the court with rookies and second year players most always seems to work well for this team.
October 15th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
rob
October 15th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“But I believe trying him out at SF taking precedence over using him at the two is by plan more than by attrition.”
It’s a matter of basic mathematics. With Anderson out of the equation, we have 6 players at the 1/2, and 2 players at the SF. Thus, as I said, we are stronger and have an overload at 1/2, and we are weaker and underrepresented at SF, and so it only makes sense to give Anderson some time at the three spot under those circumstances.
“Also, Manu has already stated that he likes coming off the bench (or at least doesn’t mind not starting). And his presence and leadership on the court with rookies and second year players most always seems to work well for this team.”
I will concede that Manu coming off the bench is a viable option (and one that Pop has a history of doing), but I just think at this time, with this team, it would make sense to try Manu & TP as the starters again, as they were in 2005-06 when we won 63 games.
October 16th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Jim Henderson
“but I just think at this time, with this team, it would make sense to try Manu & TP as the starters again”
Leaving a leadership void with so many new faces off the bench? I don’t think Hill is capable at this time to lead new combers off the bench. But perhaps Pop thinks he does.
If the bench were to consist of and on the court when the starters are being given rest a majority of the new players…that would give this team a five man set of Hill, Anderson (in you’re role of SG), Simmons, McDyess and Splitter.
That’s way too many new faces on the court at one time for Hill to direct and lead. That combined with Hill (so far) this preseason not performing well enough to lead these new players effectively should indicate that the team needs better leadership on the court when substitutions are being made.
Manu has the ability and pedigree to not only direct players…but make credited adjustments on the fly if things are not going as planned or discombobulated at the time. Better so than Hill in my opinion. And better than Parker when it comes to having to play with new players on the court.
October 16th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
rob
October 16th, 2010 at 10:48 am
“Leaving a leadership void with so many new faces off the bench? I don’t think Hill is capable at this time to lead new combers off the bench. But perhaps Pop thinks he does.”
But Hill would come in for Parker OR Manu. The leadership would usually remain with either Parker or Ginobli when Hill would come off the bench. And Hill could spark the team with his stellar transition game and his team-leading 40% 3-point shooting.
You have to remember Pop doesn’t sub whole second units at the same hardly ever. Hill would never be out there with the new-comer second unit as the lead point guard. NEVER.
“Manu has the ability and pedigree to not only direct players…but make credited adjustments on the fly if things are not going as planned or discombobulated at the time. Better so than Hill in my opinion. And better than Parker when it comes to having to play with new players on the court.”
There’s no reason with Hill coming off the bench that one of Manu or TP could be on the court when 3 or more second unit players are also in the game.
October 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Jim Henderson
“There’s no reason with Hill coming off the bench that one of Manu or TP could be on the court when 3 or more second unit players are also in the game.”
Yeah…that is how it usually plays out. But still…Parker and Hill proved to be a really good combination last year.
And if I had my druthers…I would prefer Manu off the bench to lead the new players rather than having either Parker or Hill having to take on that role.
Parker is a self containment type of player that uses his help on the court only if he can’t do what he does effectively. Hill is too young and raw to help other teammates younger or less experienced than he to get productively involved. At least not yet.
Manu has neither of those issues. Which would help more if ever having to direct on the court.
That plus Hill is probably this team’s best perimeter defender. And having the best defender on the court against the opponents best offensive guards would probably contribute to a more solid contribution than when the other team’s less effective offensive players are on the court.
October 16th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
rob
October 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Parker and Hill proved to be a really good combination last year.”
Offensively yes, but they are challenged defensively, particularly against big back court opponents.
“…I would prefer Manu off the bench to lead the new players rather than having either Parker or Hill having to take on that role.”
Manu would still get the majority of time as a starter with the new-comers off the second unit. It’s all about substitution patterns. TP is also underrated as a facilitator because he’s such a dominant scorer off the dribble. For example, he’d be great with the pick & roll with Splitter, as well as with the penetrate and kick for a wide open Anderson three.
“That plus Hill is probably this team’s best perimeter defender.”
Actually in my view Manu is our best perimeter defender. Ideally Hill should split most of his time with Manu, and then with Temple, and perhaps Neal if he has sufficient play-making skills. Hill and Parker are a very good combo, but their lack of size can hurt defensively against big SG’s, so their minutes together should be more limited, except against undersized back courts like Golden State, Memphis, and the Clippers as just three examples. Generally speaking, if the opposing team has a offensively talented SG at 6’6″ or taller (e.g., Lakers, Blazers, Rockets, etc.), if at all possible, I would limit the TP/Hill combo, particularly if Anderson, Temple, & Neal can earn limited rotation minutes defensively at the SG.
October 17th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
[...] I recently pointed out, Curtis Jerrells has used this preseason to prove that he is an NBA player. The Spurs, unfortunately, are already [...]
Leave a Reply