Tony Parker, Tony Parker, Tony Parker..

All you really need to know about San Antonio's 109-94 win over the Wizards tonight is that Tony Parker couldn't be stopped (29 points and 11 assists) while the Spurs pretty much stopped Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison (28 points combined, zero in the fourth quarter).

The Wiz played pretty well. Shot 46.7 percent, didn't let Tim Duncan dominate (16 points, 7 boards) had 22 assists verses 10 turnovers, made eight three-pointers and were in the game late. The difference was a 14-3 fourth quarter run that turned an 86-80 game into a 100-83 game in a little over four minutes.

During that stretch, the Wiz possessions went like this: Butler missed a 17-footer, Jamison missed an 8-footer, Daniels had a turnover, Daniels missed a lay-up, Jamison missed a 12-footer, Haywood missed a 7-footer, Young made a three-pointer, Jamison missed a 5-foote and Butler had a turnover.

Game over.

By Ivan Carter |  November 29, 2007; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: Wiz putting up a fight | Next: Can Dunleavy Keep This Up?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Can't really be too mad about this game. The Wizards played hard, but the Spurs pulled away late.

They gave a solid effort, but they just got beat by a better team.

Posted by: Matt | November 29, 2007 12:40 AM

Losing a game like this isn't a downer b/c we're talking about the nba champs here. It's not the same as losing to Indiana or other poor teams early in the season that were lottery last year.

But, DS should have done a better job trying to contain TP, but he didn't. Also, I can't figure out why CBut only took 9 shots. He's probably getting tired from all the minutes he's been playing. Same for AJ.

Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 12:43 AM

It's a shame how thin we are at the 2 spot. We have DS whose defense is VASTLY overrated and just cannot create his own shot, then we have Nick who can flat out score but for some reason seems lost on every defensive rotation...and is it just me or does anyone else notice how Nick always flails his arms everytime he gets called for a foul..I swear its like watching an 8-yr old lose his lollipop.

Oh yeah. I forgot about Mason, our "3 point specialist" who rarely knocks down his OPEN jumpers

Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 12:55 AM

Mason jacking up 28 ft. 3 pointers with someone in his face can't really be a scripted play. It just can't be.

Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 12:58 AM

I only saw the fourth, but I would guess that the Spurs decided to take Caron Butler away tonight and that's why he only had 9 shots. That is the thing about the Spurs, if they are determined to take away an element of your offense that a team is too reliant on, then they will do it.

Posted by: George Templeton | November 29, 2007 1:35 AM

Gotta get Caron more shots

Posted by: TROB | November 29, 2007 1:37 AM

Yeah. I just hope that Deshawn starts playing up to his contract's worth.

With Nick..he's still a rook so I'm not too flustered with him missing his defensive assignments. I'm glad he's getting the minutes now so come playoff time he can be ready to perform.

My only real quip is with Mason. He's such a one-dimensional player - 3pt shooting - but what so frustrating is that he cant even get that down with the little minutes that he actually plays. I was pretty high on him last season b/c he would knock down his shots. But for some reason nowadays his shots have been clanging off the rim. His form is nice so I dont know what the deal is, maybe its complacency but he needs to step his game up pretty soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 1:41 AM

Gotta credit Bowen with his handling of Tuff Juice. Caron is just another bullet on the list of players he shuts down

Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 1:43 AM

It's hard to get too down on Stevenson for not containing Parker. Pretty much no one can contain Parker. He's at or near the top of the league in points scored in the paint, and it's not because of his low post game.

The Spurs are damn near impossible to keep under wraps for an entire game unless it's by a team with a topnotch full-bore defense and the Wiz aren't in that league yet. You can't really play the "take away what they like to do and force them to beat you with something else" game with the Spurs because they do everything well: best low post big man in the game, top flight long range shooting, guards who can penetrate and dish or finish at will. They're just too good to beat on any night when the opponent isn't playing near-perfect ball. This wasn't that night for the Wiz.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 1:45 AM

I have to wonder about Jordan's decision to go to Mason as the first guard off the bench, instead of Young. I can only assume he thought Mason might be a better matchup defensively for Ginobili. But even if that's true (and it probably is) he's still not really a good defensive matchup for Ginobili. Mason didn't really do much to stop him, and he didn't do much to make up for what he gave up at the other end. Young may have played matador defense, but at least he has better odds of making Ginobili pay for it at the other end.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 1:50 AM

I agree with Kal on Mason. Still not sure why he's still here, to be honest.

Posted by: Pradamaster | November 29, 2007 2:47 AM

Several positives in this game.

All of the players showed the right attitude.

They played competitively on the road against the best team in the game.

Blatche and Young saw the real thing. They will get better with that sort of experience.

Posted by: Izman | November 29, 2007 6:56 AM

For those who are asking why Mason is still here, let's not forget that we are already playing with a depleted roster. If his play doesn't improve in the next month, let's see if he is still around come January when teams are able to sign players to 10-day contracts. In the meantime, I agree with others that NY should be the 1st guard off the bench...

Posted by: pk1 | November 29, 2007 7:01 AM

Their the NBA champs and they are for a reason. I'd agree with Izman, good for the youngsters to get to see and go up against the cream of the league.

With Arenas out it changes the dynamics of the gaurd core. Mason is being asked to play more backup point, which he seems ill fitted to do. Sometime if a guy's taken out of their comfort zone they loose all confidence in their games, Mason seems to have a similar case of Jarvis Hayes cold shooting that he experienced here last year.

I don't think we've beat them down there since Duncan came in the league. Arenas wouldn't have stopped Parker but he could have offset him. On to Philly.

Posted by: GM | November 29, 2007 7:26 AM

I agree with Kal, too. We can't reasonable expect DS to stop Parker. In fact, he shouldn't be guarding him. It should be the PG's responsibility because, presumably, our PG should be the quickest guy on our team. Small, quick PG's have given us fits all year and I suspect will continue to do so.
I think Mason is on the team because D. Taylor had such a poor preseason. In hindsight, we should have kept Chase or Miles, though.
For those who think only in one dimension...When I said that we have to outscore people to win, that was as opposed to outdefending people to win. We'll win more high scoring games than low scoring games.
I didn't watch the whole game but in the box score I see that BTH was 8-12 (Duncan was guarding him early), finished with only 3 fouls and only played 29 minutes. I won't criticize the substitution pattern since I didn't watch the whole game but is there a reason he only played 29 minutes when he was playing well and was not in foul trouble? I saw him go at Duncan early and he looked like there was no answer for him. Why did we go away from that?

Posted by: mark | November 29, 2007 7:30 AM

I don't know if I can be very upset about a 15-point loss to the best team in the league without our best player. That's like the Redskins losing by a touchdown to the Patriots. There are no moral victories but some losses are easier to bear. Plus, if they beat down Philly (as they should), we'll get back to 500 with a bunch of home games ahead.

Posted by: Bart | November 29, 2007 8:06 AM

Oh BTW, Tony Parker is the reigning playoffs MVP. So it's not like the Wizards allowed some no-name player to tear them apart.

Posted by: Bart | November 29, 2007 8:07 AM

Mark, I don't have a reason for 29 minutes, but I'd expect that at most Haywood would be a 35 to 40 minute guy. so it really wasn't that far off.

But, the Spurs are great at over playing guys so that it's difficult to get an entry pass into the post where Haywood can do anythig with it.

They're just a good all around team, Charles Jones was talking about watching for the little things that don't show up in the box scores when talking about Songalia yesterday. They have a roster full of guys that just do the little things to beat teams.

They're not flashy, some of the writers seem to hate them because they say they're dull. But boy do they just wear a team down then finish them off. Not alot of effort wasted in any kind of showmanship, just punch the clock and another day at the office.

As much press as Parker does get, he's probably still underrated. If he gets an eyebrow by a player he finds away to sqeeze through to the hoop. There was more then once last night when I thought the Wiz played pretty good D and he still wormed his way to the hoop and put up a shot with what looked like no room to manuver.

And remember as somebody said yesterday, they're on cruise control right now and they still haven't lost at home, wait til March when they drop the hammer.

Posted by: GM | November 29, 2007 8:22 AM

Last year we had "Arvis" this year we have the "Brick" the "Brick Mason" that is.

What was the deal with EJ's 20 second time out down by 18 with 1:23 left in the game. I couldn't tell but was he upset that Haywood was on the bench while all the other players were huddled around him? It sounded to me like he yelled Haywood's name out loud.

Posted by: DC Juan | November 29, 2007 8:26 AM

"For those who are asking why Mason is still here, let's not forget that we are already playing with a depleted roster. If his play doesn't improve in the next month, let's see if he is still around come January when teams are able to sign players to 10-day contracts. In the meantime, I agree with others that NY should be the 1st guard off the bench...

Posted by: pk1 | November 29, 2007 07:01 AM "

Forget Mason, why isn't JR Pinnock or Mike Hall on the team instead? At least those guys did something during the preseason and can play some D and are aggressive, nevermind cheaper.

Also, for those giving DS a bye on Tony Parker....sure, TP is almost unguardable, he's too quick. But, what did the Pat Riley Knicks or Isiah's Pistons do back in the day when quick little guards tried to penetrate? They were squashed like bugs. That's the only way to stop players like that, and that's to hammer them.

Somebody call John Chaney and get the number of his former player that put the hurt on someone. Les Boules need more physical players in the paint.

Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 8:49 AM

Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 8:53 AM

For those of you who recorded the game on TIVO, go back and watch how San Antonio played defense on Jamison & Butler.

They bodied up to them and dared them to drive, taking away the open jump shot. Lots of bumping, hacking and pushing (which the referees never seemed to call).

It seemed to especially bother Jamison (4 of 15 shooting) - and he complained all night. Caron only took 9 shots; preferring instead to pass.

To be fair, Tony Parker and Ginobli were bumped and hacked nearly every time they went to the basket, but nothing was called either. Haywood was able to bump Duncan the whole game too. The difference is that Parker and Duncan were able to play off the contact, protect the ball, and still make shots. Parker made some amazing shots.

Only 37 foul shots for both teams, so the referees were letting both teams play physical.... With Arenas out, that definately favored the Spurs.

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 8:54 AM

Saw the game last night. No complaints on EJ's substitutions this time. They just got beat by a better team. I think even with Gil they would have lost. They remind me of New England. They are like a machine and you just can't mess with them.

I think the reason why EJ let Mason come in before NY is because the Spurs are a veteran team and they are excellent at the offense and defensive ends of the floor. He probably wanted NY to observe and soak up the game flow and offensive/defensive sets the Spurs were running first from the bench before he put him in there.

Also, remember Mason turned down a guaranteed 2 or 3 year contract with the Spurs to sign with the Wiz. Maybe EJ was trying to show Mason some appreciation for doing so and thus let him play against the team hoping he had a good game to show them what they missed out on. Just a thought....

Posted by: Bullets Fever #1 | November 29, 2007 8:58 AM

Re: Mason

I've got to assume that Mason, for all his current shooting woes, is going to be the guy that Eddie puts in at PG if Antonio gets hurt. They aren't signing a backup PG, and I can't imagine that Nick Young could be expected to fill that role. If that is the game plan, then I hope Mason gets a lot more minutes soon so that the team doesn't suffer a total collapse in even the brief absence of Gilbert and Antonio.
It's not a comfortable feeling when the guy who can't get hurt at this point (Antonio) goes to the floor more than anyone else on the team.

Posted by: Trifecta | November 29, 2007 8:59 AM

Good half of ball last night for us, we really hung in-there and these last two games show that we can play with the best.

I have to quibble a bit with the coaching last night. It was predictable that Butler & Jamison would not have big nights given the Spurs defense, so EJ should have been ready to counter. Why EJ affraid to use an inside game? Blatche & Haywood in the post, perhaps with D-Mac thrown in there for defense? We did well with the Tall-ball experiement, and I don't know why EJ hasn't tried it more.

DeBrick is worthless, I thought Jared Jeffries had terrible offensive skills, DeBrick definitly gets a C+ in that area. Give me NY and his rookie mistakes.

Posted by: Wizzy | November 29, 2007 9:23 AM

DeBrick is worthless, I thought Jared Jeffries had terrible offensive skills, DeBrick definitly gets a C+ in that area.

Posted by: Wizzy | November 29, 2007 09:23 AM

Stevenson = 4 of 8 (2-4 from 3-point) 50% shooting.

N.Young = 1 of 7 (1 of 4 from 3-point)


C+? Boy, I'm sure glad you weren't my teacher in College !!!


Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 9:41 AM

I saw that DS was being aggressive and hitting a few shots, but in now way is he anyone's defensive ace. I don't know why he called himself that when he signed here.

Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 9:46 AM

I've got to think that Mason is putting too much pressure on himself. Remember, he only signed a one year deal for less money than he could have received elsewhere. In order to cash in this offseason he knows he's got to put up good numbers in the limited minutes that he's getting. Hopefully he'll forget about his contractual circumstances and just do his thing.


Posted by: M.E.G. | November 29, 2007 10:20 AM

I agree with Mark, I think the team should have given Miller the guaranteed contract instead of Mason. Before the season, with Gil's coming back from the surgery, I have argued that the 3rd PG is important for the team. But I guess the team weren't sure how much Nick Young can do in terms of scoring punch from the bench and felt that Mason can help in that area.

Unfortunately Mason is now asked to play out of his comfort position and cannot produce the scoring the team had hoped. In addition, this may also affect his FA market next season, so can end up being a loose-loose situation.

Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 10:26 AM

Rook

DeBrick is a C+ SG, nothing more, he can't create and he's not clutch (as we all know). The sooner NY knocks DeBrick down in the rotation the better.

Posted by: Wizzy | November 29, 2007 10:31 AM

Forget Mason, why isn't JR Pinnock or Mike Hall on the team instead? At least those guys did something during the preseason and can play some D and are aggressive, nevermind cheaper.

Posted by: DC Man88
-------------------------------------------

Great, now you are going to have Mike Hall back up AD as PG?

Who is JR Pinnock BTW?

Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 10:33 AM

A couple of times during the game, Jamison could have passed back, or passed to a cutter instead of going for the jumpshot from the corners. Granted he was handcuffed so could not drive, but moving in and looking for someone to pass to would have created an opportunity for someone else.

Posted by: rgz | November 29, 2007 10:55 AM

Rook

DeBrick is a C+ SG, nothing more, he can't create and he's not clutch (as we all know). The sooner NY knocks DeBrick down in the rotation the better.

Posted by: Wizzy | November 29, 2007 10:31 AM

I just don't think Deshawn Stevenson is as bad as everybody on this blog seems to think. Earlier this year, his shooting was terrible - something like 29% in the first 5 or 6 games, if I remember right...

Right now, he's shooting 46% over his last 10 games, including 48% from behind the 3-point line. Last year, for a long time he was shooting 50%, ending the year at a respectable 46% (and 40% from 3-point).

Not EVERY player is "clutch". When was the last time Nick Young hit a game winning shot in the NBA? The Wizards have Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler - those guys can get it done in crunch time - so they don't need Stevenson to be "clutch".

What the Wizards need from Stevenson is to hit a fair share of open jump shots. They don't need him to create.

Perhaps, when Nick Young is better aclimated to the Professional game, and is not such a liability on defense, he'll be in a position to take over that starting spot. Like, maybe, Next Year?

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 10:56 AM

I don't have a problem with Mason being on the roster, per se. I think he can be a useful player. I just don't think he should be ahead of Young in the SG rotation at this point.

As for the whole "small, quick PG" thing, small and quick don't automatically equate to good, particularly on defense. Besides, it seems like more and more the top PGs are getting bigger and stronger, not smaller.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 10:57 AM

Wanted to take this opportunity to restart my August rantings about how signing DaBriok instead of JCN was THE DUMBEST decision in the world? DaBrick in 25 mpg avgd 6.8ppg, 3.2rpg, and 2.2apg. Thats not somebody you can have in your starting lineup.
JCN on the otherhand is in his first season in the NBA already averaging 10.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, and 2.0 apg, has had two 28 point games and over his last four games is averaging 18.75 ppg.

Posted by: Emmet | November 29, 2007 11:10 AM

And do I have to re-post why JCN was NEVER coming here, and how he and his agent manipulated the NBA and the Wizards to make sure he went where he wanted to go?

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 11:14 AM

Never Coming here? I guess you think his agent had more power than the Chinese government. Milwaukee showed that if you hold a player's rights,you control. He didn't come here because cheap Abe,or probably his wife,would not let us go over the cap. A good topic would be to see Ivan try to interview Abe and see if he and Steinbrenner are playing the same card game.

Posted by: Beeb | November 29, 2007 11:24 AM

OK - let's talk FACTS

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Yi Jianlian and Navarro were two completely different set of circumstances. The one had nothing to do with the other.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 11:32 AM

As for holding a players rights equaling control ... tell that to the Cleveland Cavaliers and Varejao.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 11:34 AM

2002 Wizards select Juan Carlos Navarro 40th overall pick in the second round of the 2002 NBA Draft

For the next 5 years, JCN makes noise every year about signing with the Wizards, using the NBA and the Wizards as leverage. Each time resigning with his Spanish team.


June 28, 2007: FACT: Wizards select Young and McGuire in the 2007 NBA Draft.

July 1, 2007: FACT: Deshawn Stevenson opts out of the final year of his contract to become a Free Agent.

July 3, 2007: FACT: Some Spanish papers are reporting that Juan Carlos Navarro had has reached an accord with FC Barcelona that will let him pursue an NBA career.

FACT: Some of those same Spanish papers were reporting that "Gasol's Grizzlies could be in the mix".

Interesting that the Grizzlies would be "in the mix" for Navarro, even BEFORE the Wizards officially know that he is available.
You also have to wonder about the timing of the buyout announcement. Why did he wait until the end of the Summer to negotiate the buyout?
Why?.... One POSSIBLE reason is that the Wizards would already have set their planning for signing Stevenson, Blatche and their Draft Picks.


July 4, 2007: FACT: The Washington Post (Ivan Carter) says negotiations with Stevenson continue; and quotes Stevenson's Agent as saying that "We're talking. Right now everything is day-to-day."
FACT: Negotiations with Stevenson were already in progress, and apparently well along!


July 4, 2007: FACT: It is reported (Ivan Carter) that there's a rumor that JCN had met with F. C. Barcelona and netotiated a lower buyout. That rumor had not yet been confirmed by the Wizards.
Keep in mind, every Summer JCN had made noises about coming to the NBA, but always stayed in Spain. Mostly, those threats of going to the NBA were made to help negotiate a larger contract with his Spanish team.


July 5, 2007: FACT: Washington still negotiating with Stevenson & Blatche.
FACT: Wizards signed first-round pick Nick Young and last year's first round pick, Oleksiy Pecherov, to standard rookie contracts.

July 5, 2007: FACT: Juan Carlos Navarro is quoted in Spanish papers as saying "Memphis would be good because at the moment they have Pau, but at some point he could be changing teams. Miami would be good because of the team and because they speak plenty of Spanish there."
Why would Navarro be talking about Memphis and Miami, when Washington holds his draft rights?

FACT: Navarro's personal website also has a poll in which you can vote where he should play. The Wizards are coming in third!
Again, why would Navarro be even talking about Miami and Memphis?

FACT: DX Draft express reports that JCN is looking for a contract similar to what Sarunas Jasikevicius signed with Indiana when he came over back in 2005. - 3 years and around 12 million dollars.

FACT: Saratsis (Navarro's Agent) acknowledges that "playing with Pau Gasol, or being in an international city" where Navarro's family would feel comfortable (Miami) would both be nice.

This stuff is happening just ONE day after he negotiated a lower buyout from his Spanish team!!


July 6, 2007: FACT: The Wizards make a 4-year offer to Stevenson (reported in the Washington Post), 2 DAYS after the rumor (STILL unconfirmed) that JCN had negotiated a buy-out.


July 16, 2007: FACT: DeShawn Stevenson signs a four-year, $15 million contract with the Washington Wizards


July 26, 2007: FACT: FC Barcelona delivers an ultimatum to sign guard Juan Carlos Navarro or trade his NBA rights to another team by August 3rd.


August 2, 2007: FACT: Wizards offer a 5-year deal to Andre Blatche

August 3, 2007: FACT: FC Barcelona lifts Juan Carlos Navarro's trade deadline.

August 16, 2007: FACT: Navarro deal is officially done. JCN for a top-19 protected 2008 pick.


FACT: Sometime after, Navarro signs a 1-Year minimum contract for $538K with the Grizzlies.
By the way, ANYONE EVER hear where his contract demands with the Wizards were less than $3 Million dollars?


Another note: Since JCN signed a 1-year deal, he will be a Free Agent at the end of the year and can sign with another team, including the Wizards.

I read somewhere that FC Barcelona negotiated his buy out so that IF JCN did not sign with an NBA club, Navarro would have to re-up with them (with the higher $13 Million buyout).

Again, I don't know how much of that is hype, and how much is fact. I would not be surprised to find out that JCN and/or his agent was behind the "ultimatum", AND the buyout requirements.

After all, it was not until AFTER the trade was made that it came out that FC Barcelona was willing to accept payments against the buyout over several years, allowing JCN to sign with Memphis for the minimum salary.

I'm absolutely sure that if Ernie G. knew he could sign JCN for $538K this year, he would have signed him instead of spending $770K on Rodger Mason.

I think Ernie got punked by JCN and his Agent.

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 11:35 AM

Sorry about the long post again guys.... but as you can plainly see by the timeline, the option was NEVER between signing Stevenson OR Navarro.

Rather, the decision Ernie had to make was whether to sign Blatche OR Navarro.

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 11:36 AM

Even worse - IF JCN had negotiated in good faith with the Wizards, they could have signed Stevenson, Blatche, ALL the rookies AND signed Navarro INSTEAD OF Rodger Mason!!!

Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 11:42 AM

One day the team needs a backup point gaurd, now we should of carried another backup small forward.

Here we go off to the races again. Kalorama, I'm not sure that smaller is better, but there is a particular kind of gaurd that we seem to have no counter for. Both Arenas and Daniels struggled against the same kind of little quick points.

Now with the heavy minutes that Daniels is playing it's even harder for him since he's getting fatigued. Not sure there's even a solution out there to pickup even if the Wiz were inclined to use their Veteran Min. Exception right now.

Some of the names that have been brought up like NcNamarra aren't in the league to start with because they can't defend NBA level quickness. So I'm not so sure that it might be a problem the Wiz will deal with all year.

And I'm not talking about just Tony Parker, there's hardly a team in the league with an answer for him. It's the little quick guys that start or come of the bench for some teams.

Why would Earl Boykins ever sign with the Wiz? This was always one team in the league he could bank on going off against. He's going to want to keep playing us as often as possible.

Posted by: GM | November 29, 2007 11:43 AM

As for the whole "small, quick PG" thing, small and quick don't automatically equate to good, particularly on defense. Besides, it seems like more and more the top PGs are getting bigger and stronger, not smaller.

Posted by: kalorama
------------------------------------------

Yeah, the "top" PGs (i.e., the starters). But we are not talking about starter here, we are talking about a backup to AD. I think "small, quick PG" as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher. It is nice to have relieve pitchers that possess different traits than your starters. You can use them as situational substitute, or use them to change pace, and disrupt the style that opponent feel accustomed to; even though they are not the guy you expect to be out there for the long duration.

I have nothing against Mason either. I just feel that salary spot could have been better used for the Wizards.

Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 11:44 AM

I lived in Spain for two years. Gasol and JCN rank as two of the UGLIEST Spaniards I've ever seen.

Posted by: reispace | November 29, 2007 11:52 AM

"I think "small, quick PG" as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher. It is nice to have relieve pitchers that possess different traits than your starters."

But pretty much every time you bring it up it's in relation to the Wiz's inability to contain opposing PGs defensively. But here's the thing: small quick PGs are generally not very good defenders, even against other small quick PGs. Iverson, Parker, Paul, and Nash are perfect cases in point, and they're among the top guys in the league. The odds of a second or third stringer having any better luck defensively against those guys are pretty slim.

The team's needs in a backup PG (really, a third string PG) are pretty basic: get the ball across the half-court line against defensive pressure, get it quickly into the hands of one of the playmakers, and be ready (and able) to get the back and hit an open jumper. Given the level/quality of player they're likely to be able to get, expecting much more than that might be wishful thinking.

Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 12:15 PM

Does anyone know how many other teams are over the luxury tax?

Posted by: DC Juan | November 29, 2007 12:35 PM

I don't know how many teams are over the Luxury Tax limit for the 2007-2008 season, but there were 5 teams last year (2006-2007) that were over the tax.
They were:

  • Knicks $45,142,002

  • Mavs $7,204,968

  • Nuggets $2,022,418

  • T-Wolves $998,536

  • Spurs $196,082
  • Which means that the remaining 25 non-tax-paying teams will each get an equal share, which is about $1.9 million per team.

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 12:44 PM

    On hoopshype.com recently waived point guard Mike Wilks is stating that Washington has interest in him. I wonder if this means that EG has something brewing????

    Posted by: bullets_0000 | November 29, 2007 12:47 PM

    Rook said: "Even worse - IF JCN had negotiated in good faith with the Wizards, they could have signed Stevenson, Blatche, ALL the rookies AND signed Navarro INSTEAD OF Rodger Mason!!!"

    He is absolutely, 100% right. Roger Mason makes $770,610, JCN makes $538,090.

    Posted by: 2cents4wiz | November 29, 2007 12:51 PM

    I still think that small and quick is better if you're playing D against those quicker guys. Kal, those small guys you all mentioned are scoring/passing types. I was thinking more of a Tyronne Lue type or even Donnell Taylor. Anyone that can at least slow down a guy who's trying to get into the lane would help.
    On the other hand, there are some guys who NO ONE in this league can stay in front of. Parker, GA, Tinsley and Barbosa come to mind. Surely there must be some sort of defensive strategy to counter those guys. Someone is stopping them or slowing them down so why can't we?
    I say let them come down the lane and if they can hit teardrops over our center every time, more power to them. Collapsing on them is feeding into exactly what they want us to do so they can kick it out for an open 3. Get long interior defenders (BTH and AB together) in there to discourage those guys from penetrating. That'll allow us to keep a man on the spot up shooters. Billups was a decent defender but didn't always stay in front of his man. With Prince, Rasheed, and Big Ben behind him, he didn't have to. Long arms make a big difference and we have a few in AB and BTH.

    Posted by: mark | November 29, 2007 12:52 PM

    The Luxury tax threshold is $67,865,000 for this year.

    For this year, I think the Spurs will be under the Luxury tax.... but the Knicks, Mavericks, Nuggets, Lakers, Celtics, 76ers and Suns are either over, or very close.
    Remember that the tax is not actually calculated until AFTER the season ends.

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 1:00 PM

    About JCN's money ... keep in mind that Memphis is paying some of the money owed to JCNs spanish team. They are allowed to pay up to $500k. I think that would also count towards the cap. Maybe Memphis didn't pay that much since they only signed him to a one year deal ( but they probably did ).

    Posted by: 2cents4wiz | November 29, 2007 1:02 PM

    "I say let them come down the lane and if they can hit teardrops over our center every time, more power to them. Get long interior defenders (BTH and AB together) in there to discourage those guys from penetrating. "

    Blatche or Haywood were on the floor for almost every minute of last night's game and it didn't discourage Parker or Ginobili in the least. As I've said before, the days when big shotblockers could camp out in the lane and wait for guys to come running at them are long gone. Even the best erasers aren't going to single-handedly shut down the middle the way Mutombo, Olajuwon, and Robinson did back in the day. Inviting guards to get into the lane isn't great strategy. We saw the damage Parker and Ginobili did without an invitation.

    We definitely need some quicker defense on the perimeter, to slow drivers down and give the interior defense time to rotate over. No argument there. It's the "smaller" part I have trouble with. In today's game, small guards are generally a defensive liability, no matter how quick they are. It's not enough to be fast, you also have to be able to put enough body on your man to bump him off. Also, small guards carry a standing invitation to be posted up down low.

    Billups is a perfect case in point. He's not lightning fast, but what he lacks in speed, he makes up for in strength and smarts. He's big and strong and knows how to position his body so that the he can hold the dribbler up and force him to fight through to get a step. And the time it takes the dribbler to fight past Chauncey gives the big men the chance to get into defensive position in the lane. Put a smaller quicker guard in that spot and it becomes easier/quicker for the driver to get into the lane, making it tougher for the bigs to rotate, increasing the chances that the driver will not only get to the hoop, but that he'll be able to draw fouls on the bigs because they don't have time to get into proper position defensively.

    Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 1:22 PM

    "Forget Mason, why isn't JR Pinnock or Mike Hall on the team instead? At least those guys did something during the preseason and can play some D and are aggressive, nevermind cheaper.

    Posted by: DC Man88
    -------------------------------------------

    Great, now you are going to have Mike Hall back up AD as PG?

    Who is JR Pinnock BTW?

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 10:33 AM "

    Uh, did I say "Mike Hall should back up AD?" Duh, of course I didn't.

    I said Mike Hall is better and cheaper than having Mason. JR Pinnock ska Danilo Pinnock is a 6-5 guard from GWU who can score and defend a bit.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 1:25 PM

    "Some of the names that have been brought up like NcNamarra aren't in the league to start with because they can't defend NBA level quickness. So I'm not so sure that it might be a problem the Wiz will deal with all year.

    And I'm not talking about just Tony Parker, there's hardly a team in the league with an answer for him. It's the little quick guys that start or come of the bench for some teams.

    Posted by: GM | November 29, 2007 11:43 AM "

    Uhhh, the last I checked, all of our starters have trouble "defending NBA level quickness," not just GMac.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 1:30 PM

    Let's be realistic,the Wizards do not have a backup PG.That was AD's job.If a team decides to press or trap the Wizards when AD is on the bench ,we are screwed.We all know that NY cannot handle the rock that well unless he is setting up his own shot,& Mason was resigned to be the offense to Stevensons defense(how is that working out for us).The 3rd string PG job was D.Taylor's to lose during summer league & he stunk up the joint.The mistake was to let Miles get away.Since Abe would have to go over the cap to get a backup for AD (like Boykins)we can scratch that off of our X-mas wish list.BTW when is DMac going to get some playing time,maybe he can develope into our Bruce Bowen.To look on the bright side we have Philly up next.

    Posted by: dcpirate1 | November 29, 2007 1:30 PM

    "On hoopshype.com recently waived point guard Mike Wilks is stating that Washington has interest in him. I wonder if this means that EG has something brewing????

    Posted by: bullets_0000 | November 29, 2007 12:47 PM "

    I already reported that.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 1:31 PM

    About JCN's money ... keep in mind that Memphis is paying some of the money owed to JCNs spanish team. They are allowed to pay up to $500k. I think that would also count towards the cap. Maybe Memphis didn't pay that much since they only signed him to a one year deal ( but they probably did ).

    Posted by: 2cents4wiz | November 29, 2007 01:02 PM

    You are absolutely right 2cents. Memphis can pay up to $500K towards a foreign team's buy out - AND it counts against their salary cap and Luxury Tax.

    However, I don't believe Memphis paid ANYTHING to JCN's Spanish team.

    One reason is that the $500K buyout would be listed as part of JCN's salary (as a signing bonus), counted towards the salary cap and Lux Tax (and trade value) on ESPN's Trade Machine. It's not there.

    Another other reason is that there has been NO mention in any papers, internet resources or major magazines that Memphis paid anything other than Navaro's $538K in salary.

    Even so, the Wizards are about $200K under the Lux Tax now... add that to the $770K Mason salary, and you're pretty close to what was needed - IF the Wiz had to pay the $500K.

    IF JCN had negotiated in good faith with the Wizards, he would be playing here!!!

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 1:36 PM

    "

    Let's be realistic,the Wizards do not have a backup PG.That was AD's job.If a team decides to press or trap the Wizards when AD is on the bench ,we are screwed.We all know that NY cannot handle the rock that well unless he is setting up his own shot,& Mason was resigned to be the offense to Stevensons defense(how is that working out for us).The 3rd string PG job was D.Taylor's to lose during summer league & he stunk up the joint.The mistake was to let Miles get away.Since Abe would have to go over the cap to get a backup for AD (like Boykins)we can scratch that off of our X-mas wish list.BTW when is DMac going to get some playing time,maybe he can develope into our Bruce Bowen.To look on the bright side we have Philly up next.

    Posted by: dcpirate1 | November 29, 2007 01:30 PM "

    If AD bows out, I'd have to put AB at the point.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 1:41 PM

    But pretty much *every time* you bring it up it's in relation to the Wiz's inability to contain opposing PGs defensively.

    Posted by: kalorama
    --------------------------------------------

    No, that's not true. Previously, I only stated the importance of a 3rd PG (counting Gil and AD), and that I would not mind he being a smallish guard (e.g., Brian Chase).

    Besides, I also mentioned "situational substitution" I think a quick guard can be useful in defending opponent's quick guard. A quick, small guard (note, not a slow and small guard) could be a plus, but I would not insist on the "small" part.

    Also, some offensive players are not good defensively, small or big. I am sure I can bring up some offensive only players that are defensive liability as well. This does not speak against their size either.

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 1:43 PM

    "IF JCN had negotiated in good faith with the Wizards, he would be playing here!!!

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 01:36 PM "

    I think JCN, just like any baller, wanted to feel loved by the franchise getting him, and didn't get it here. When EG signed DS, JCN said that he didn't see a reason why he should go to Les BouleS b/c they already committed to DS.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 1:46 PM

    DC Man88,

    The question is, the most urgent need of the team right now is a serviceable PG to back up AD. How is Mike Hall going to help in this situation? The reason why Mike Hall is cut is because there is D Mac playing the same position who is ahead of him. Well, D Mac is stuck as the last man in the current shortened 10-men roster. Mike Hall is not going to see playing time at all!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 1:48 PM

    "He is absolutely, 100% right. Roger Mason makes $770,610, JCN makes $538,090."

    Indeed, it would be nice to have JCN instead of Mason on the roster. Well, it is too late now.

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 1:54 PM

    "Their the NBA champs and they are for a reason....Mason is being asked to play more backup point, which he seems ill fitted to do."

    I agree, and I thought they played well. The Spurs are the best team in the league, I hope they don't get too down on themselves for the loss. Until the 4th quarter as Ivan mentioned I thought they gave the Spurs all they could handle.

    Mason is definately not the answer, they need to park him deep on the bench. Too many turnovers, too many missed open shots.

    It seems they have gotten past not having Gilbert in the lineup. His injury really could be a blessing in disguise for this team.

    - Ray

    Posted by: Ray | November 29, 2007 2:02 PM

    "Indeed, it would be nice to have JCN instead of Mason on the roster. Well, it is too late now."

    Yeah, time to let that go.

    - Ray

    Posted by: Ray | November 29, 2007 2:03 PM

    "DC Man88,

    The question is, the most urgent need of the team right now is a serviceable PG to back up AD. How is Mike Hall going to help in this situation? The reason why Mike Hall is cut is because there is D Mac playing the same position who is ahead of him. Well, D Mac is stuck as the last man in the current shortened 10-men roster. Mike Hall is not going to see playing time at all!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 01:48 PM "

    If Mike Hall was here instead of Mason, there would be a little bit more room under the cap to bring somebody in. And, Hall showed us that he can score and defend, during the preseason. Mason can do neither.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 2:16 PM

    "A quick, small guard (note, not a slow and small guard) could be a plus, but I would not insist on the "small" part."

    But you have insisted on it, because every time you've mentioned it you've said specifically, "quick, small guard."

    My point is that while we need more quickness on the perimeter for defense, specifically targeting a "quick small guard" isn't the way to go because most "quick small guards" are weak defenders. You seem fixated on the idea that, since we seem to be getting beaten by "quick small guards" then we should get one of our own. But that ignores the fact that it's not the "small" part that's the problem, it's the "quick" part. Ginobili isn't small, but we couldn't keep him out of the lane. Tinsley's not small, but he penetrated the lane at will. Size is not the issue.

    Targeting a player specifically for his size rather than his actual skill set is how teams get stuck with "big men" like Adonal Foyle and Jerome James.

    Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 2:20 PM

    I know that Navarro had a tremendous game against us, but I don't think he necessarily would have fit in that well in Washington. He's a great pure outside shooter, but he shoots a 1950s Bob Cousy-style one-handed set shot rather than a jumper. I think once the rest of the league gets a book on him, he's going to have a lot tougher time getting it off. JCN's lack of strength makes him extremely vulnerable on D--I bet even Nate Robinson could post him up. Plus, at his age, he's probably not going to get any better than he is now. DeShawn isn't in his league as a shooter, but he plays decent perimeter D, which this team needs more. NY1 is the team's future at the 2, as soon as he learns how to stay in front of his man on D.

    Brian Chase is still available, right? Why don't the Wizards take a look at him?

    Posted by: John Brisker | November 29, 2007 2:30 PM

    "Brian Chase is still available, right? Why don't the Wizards take a look at him?

    Posted by: John Brisker | November 29, 2007 02:30 PM "

    B/c they're cheap.

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 2:45 PM

    But you have insisted on it, because every time you've mentioned it you've said specifically, "quick, small guard."
    Posted by: kalorama
    -------------------------------------------
    You must have mistaken me with someone else. All my posts are still around. Prove it!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 2:49 PM

    I think "small, quick PG" as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher. It is nice to have relieve pitchers that possess different traits than your starters. You can use them as situational substitute, or use them to change pace, and disrupt the style that opponent feel accustomed to; even though they are not the guy you expect to be out there for the long duration.

    I have nothing against Mason either. I just feel that salary spot could have been better used for the Wizards.

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 11:44 AM

    Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 2:53 PM

    Popovich and the Spurs knew exactly what to do with the Wiz - cuff Butler and Jamison. Pop assigned one of the asst. coaches to review the Wiz - Mavs game.
    He came up with the observation: Butler was playing like the (original Bulls, not Wizards) Michael Jordan. In other words, whatever he tossed up went in. So stop him from getting the ball is what they did - 9 shots is all Caron got. Bowen took it as his assignment.

    Posted by: rgz | November 29, 2007 2:54 PM

    A quick, small guard (note, not a slow and small guard) .......

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 01:43 PM

    Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 2:55 PM

    I think "small, quick PG" as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher....

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 11:44 AM

    Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 2:58 PM

    Brian Chase is still available, right? Why don't the Wizards take a look at him?

    Posted by: John Brisker

    Because Abe is not going over the cap.Is it possible to trade Mason for a decent backup PG who is rotting away on someones bench.We can then have NY & Caron backing up the 2 while Antwan,DMac & AB are backing up the 3.

    Posted by: dcpirate1 | November 29, 2007 3:22 PM

    LOL,

    I said, "I think small, quick PG as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher...." and kalorama said that I mentioned it "every time," which implied that I have mentioned it BEFORE (not after).

    So I replied to his post, where I mentioned it the second time. Now if that's is the proof that I have mentioned it "every time," then kalorama must be a psychic!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 3:48 PM

    So based on all the FACTS and RUMORS regarding the JCN situation I can conclude that JCN and his agent outsmarted EG (tsk! tsk!).

    So what did EG do during the summer. Outsmarted by a player, did nothing to the bench and overpaid players (DS and Mason). But one smart thing is that her re-signed Blatche for multiple years.

    Posted by: Dave, | November 29, 2007 3:55 PM

    Bring back Juan Dixon!

    I'm kidding, I realize that wont happen but Dixon is probably my all time favorite nba player.

    Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 3:59 PM

    It's too bad Les BouleS didn't have the resources to sign Blake this offseason when he was a FA.

    Does anyone have the # to John Gilchrist's agent? NOT! Just kidding?

    Where's SirValiant Brown and Shawnta Rodgers?

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 4:01 PM

    Where's Chris Braswell?

    Where's the Jewish Jordan, Tamir Goodman?

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 4:03 PM

    Correction: Kevin Braswell

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 29, 2007 4:06 PM

    I do not know who is the anonymous person who posted those proofs. I rather believe it is someone who did not follow the conversation and not kalorama. And for kalorama, I still wonder how he could rebuff my claim that Haywood is a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder by arguing that Haywood has "more defensive rebounds than offensive rebounds!" (For those who do not understand the difference between the two, here is the hint: Haywood's 2.5 offensive rebounds last season ranked him 23rd in NBA, while his 3.7 defensive rebounds ranked him 95th!) And BTW, Haywood has higher FT% than his FG% too, but we do not call 60% FT as "good" and 52% FG as "bad," do we?

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 29, 2007 4:18 PM

    "And for kalorama, I still wonder how he could rebuff my claim that Haywood is a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder by arguing that Haywood has "more defensive rebounds than offensive rebounds!""

    I wonder how you could post something that both blatantly misrepresents what you said and fails to prove your point, and still act like you said something that means anything.

    As I recall the "discussion" you said that he was a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder. Period. You said nothing about his ability relative to other players. You were talking only about his abilities. By that standard, the fact that his career averages for defensive rebounds are higher than his career averages for offensive rebounds make him a better defensive rebounder. It's not alchemy. it's basic common sense.

    "Haywood has higher FT% than his FG% too, but we do not call 60% FT as "good" and 52% FG as "bad," do we?"

    That's so blatantly misleading and silly as to not even merit a response.

    Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 6:11 PM

    "I said, "I think small, quick PG as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher...." and kalorama said that I mentioned it "every time," which implied that I have mentioned it BEFORE (not after)."

    And, of course, you're hoping no one would remember that you've also mentioned it more than once in other threads.

    Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 6:12 PM

    "Where's SirValiant Brown and Shawnta Rodgers?"

    Where's God Shamgod when you need him?

    Posted by: kalorama | November 29, 2007 6:22 PM

    So based on all the FACTS and RUMORS regarding the JCN situation I can conclude that JCN and his agent outsmarted EG (tsk! tsk!).

    So what did EG do during the summer. Outsmarted by a player, did nothing to the bench and overpaid players (DS and Mason). But one smart thing is that her re-signed Blatche for multiple years.

    Posted by: Dave, | November 29, 2007 03:55 PM


    Yeah - I think EG got outsmarted by JCN and his agent. He never wanted to play for the Wizards and manipulated the situation to ensure he went to Memphis or Miami.

    As to your other assertions that EG "overpaid":

    EG paid an average player (Stevenson) a below average salary. The league average is a little over $5.2M per year, and EG signed Stevenson for 4-years, $15M.

    EG paid Mason the League Minimum for a 2-year veteran. ($770K)

    Then he locked up Blatche for less than the League Minimum as well....

    Not sure if I'd say that was overpaying.


    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 6:59 PM

    Then he locked up Blatche for less than the League Minimum as well....

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 06:59 PM

    That should say League Average

    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 8:02 PM

    Finally we all can agree - Roger Mason is a waste. I kept saying it all along. He laid the same bricks all last year and especially in the playoffs. For whatever reason, mgmt over-looked the poor performance. Thats why the word was: He had to be dating one of Eddie's relatives - cuz even Wise, Wilbon, Kornheiser, Rick Walker, John Thompson ALL called for dismissal of Wiz bench - Mason headed the list.

    Mason, isn't worth the $770,000 you report.obvious - if ANY team made him an offer - he's been in & around league
    5-6 yrs still can't play any better than that- they were desperate or blind.

    Our rookies - just look at Mac & NY. Right out the gate - can shoot your lites out..just need disciplining. Mason ain't even close. Please forget about backup PG. Please.
    oh yeah. Remember - he was supposedly to sign with Spurs as "Parker's" backup PG?????? Yikes!!

    Posted by: Bill | November 30, 2007 1:37 AM

    "As to your other assertions that EG "overpaid":

    EG paid an average player (Stevenson) a below average salary. The league average is a little over $5.2M per year, and EG signed Stevenson for 4-years, $15M.

    EG paid Mason the League Minimum for a 2-year veteran. ($770K)

    Then he locked up Blatche for less than the League Minimum as well....

    Not sure if I'd say that was overpaying.


    Posted by: Rook | November 29, 2007 06:59 PM "

    Keep in mind, when EG offered DS that contract, DS tried to negotiate for even more money. What was his leverage? He had none. No other team wanted him!

    Posted by: DC Man88 | November 30, 2007 10:08 AM

    As I recall the "discussion" you said that he was a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder. Period. You said nothing about his ability relative to other players. You were talking only about his abilities. By that standard, the fact that his career averages for defensive rebounds are higher than his career averages for offensive rebounds make him a better defensive rebounder. It's not alchemy. it's basic common sense.

    "Haywood has higher FT% than his FG% too, but we do not call 60% FT as "good" and 52% FG as "bad," do we?"

    That's so blatantly misleading and silly as to not even merit a response.
    -----------------------------------------

    "Haywood is a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder." Just as: "AD is a better assist PG than a scoring PG."

    How do we know AD is a better assist PG than a scoring PG? By comparing his assist number against his scoring? No, those are apples and oranges! The assertion is made by comparing against his peers. Likewise, to determine if a player is a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder, you compare his number to his peer, and not number to number directly! (That's why I brought up FG% vs. FT%, somehow you still miss the point!)

    Last season, Haywood ranked 95th in defensive rebound. In a league with 30 teams, he couldn't even average to be the top 3 rebounder in a team! That makes him a bad defensive rebounder. OTOH, the 25th rank in offensive rebound makes him among the top offensive rebounder in a team. So yes, Haywood IS a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder, because offensive rebound and defensive rebound are judged by different standards, just like number of assists vs. points, or FG% vs. FT%!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 30, 2007 11:07 AM

    "I said, "I think small, quick PG as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher...." and kalorama said that I mentioned it "every time," which implied that I have mentioned it BEFORE (not after)."

    And, of course, you're hoping no one would remember that you've also mentioned it more than once in other threads.

    Posted by: kalorama"I said, "I think small, quick PG as a backup is more like a relieve pitcher...." and kalorama said that I mentioned it "every time," which implied that I have mentioned it BEFORE (not after)."

    And, of course, you're hoping no one would remember that you've also mentioned it more than once in other threads.

    Posted by: kalorama
    -----------------------------------------

    Why are you continuing this ridiculous assertion without even bothering to check the fact?

    All "other threads" are still here! Why don't you go check them!

    I stand by everything I said. If I have said that before, there is no reason for me to deny it, since I still believe a quick, small PG is a plus and not a minus. (Here, this is the 3rd time I said it, all in the same thread). The problem is simply that I have never said that before, while you came out of nowhere and kept on insisting that I did.

    In addition, let me make myself clear. The first time I said it is in response to Mark's comment where he mentioned "small, quick PG." To me, the emphasis should be on "quick" and not small. If a PG is quick, then I don't mind him being small as well. But if he isn't quick, then I do not want him simply because he is "small." I will take a quick, big PG over a slow, small PG any day!

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 30, 2007 11:23 AM

    Here is the "discussion" kalorama mentioned in other thread. It wasn't even comparing Haywood's offensive rebound number vs. defensive rebound number at all. It was on my comment that "Haywood is not a good defensive rebounder." It is still in the archive.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2007/11/another_one_gets_away.html#comments

    "Haywood is not a good defensive rebounder."

    The numbers say otherwise.
    Currently he's averaging 3.2 defensive rebounds per game versus 2.6 offensive rebounds per game over his entire career, that's including the new career highs he's setting so far this season for off. rebounds per game.

    Posted by: kalorama | November 9, 2007 06:23 PM

    Posted by: Sagaliba | November 30, 2007 11:43 AM

    The comments to this entry are closed.

     
     

    © 2007 The Washington Post Company