timvp
04-05-2005, 06:39 PM
ShoogarBear: It's interesting how people think the San Antonio Spurs can bide their time for the rest of the regular season, make sure they (i.e., Duncan) get into the playoffs healthy, and then try to run the board from a two or three seed.
Forget it, folks, it ain't happening. One thing that history has established is that the Spurs win championships only as frontrunners. They have to have homecourt advantage throughout and have clearly established themselves as the team playing the best going into the playoffs. And even then they may not be enough (can anyone say 1995 or 2004?).
This year is supposedly different. The Spurs started out as pre-season favorites and for most of the year were clearly the best team. There's no doubt that, when healthy, the Spurs have the best mix of talent, teamwork, coaching and depth. The argument goes that surely, once Duncan is healthy, they can overcome any obstacles against a higher-seeded Sun or Heat team.
Except, despite a personnel edge unmatched in team history, these Spurs are subject to the same frustrating weaknesses of their predecessors: poor free-throw shooting, propensity to offensive stagnation, and, most infuriatingly, the ability to blow any-sized lead. Their standard prescription for winning is to get the big lead early and hold on (i.e., frontrunning).
To win the title which seemed assured earlier, they must be healthy and generate a roll going into the postseason, AND they must have help from the other teams to knock competition from the #1 overall seed.
Ginobili_is_God: The Spurs do not need the number one seed. How many times have the Lakers won it without it?
The Spurs simply just need to be playing team basketball. Each play down the court, the ball needs to go through Tim Duncan. If that option is not available, let Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker slash through the lane for the layup or kick out to a three-point shooter.
The Spurs have been there while other good teams such as the Dallas Mavericks, Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns and Seattle Sonics have not. The Spurs are experienced and know that anyone on their bench at anytime throughout the game can come in and make an impact.
I know the number one seed would help because it would assure us home court advantage, however I feel that the Spurs are more than capable of winning a few playoff games on the road. If we end up with the two seed, which is looking more likely these days with the injury to Duncan, we would play the Nuggets. While they are playing great basketball, this is one team I feel that the Spurs could manhandle.
No Shooters + No Experience = No Second Round
After that, the Houston Rockets and Seattle Supersonics (both very good teams) would be up next. Although both teams have beat us during the regular season, I honestly think we will beat them in the playoffs due to our depth, experience and because the best player in the world is on our team. The only team that will give us problems in the playoffs is Miami, yet I say we would beat them in six.
The Spurs are the team I live and breathe for and I know they will win it at despite not having the number one seed.
ShoogarBear: Comparing the Spurs to the 2000-2004 Lakers is precisely the wrong thing to do. The most aggravating thing about the Lakers was their ability to turn on a switch when behind. The Spurs have their own special playoff karma.
Only twice have the Spurs won a series against a team with a better record: 1982 vs. Seattle and 1993 vs. Portland. Times they’ve lost to a lower seed? Too many to mention.
It has nothing to do with talent and teamwork, which is the best. It doesn’t really have to do with the opposition. It has to do with mental toughness and killer instinct, with the ability to pull out games that seem lost. Too many times these Spurs don’t have it, because of the lack of an on-the-court buttkicker.
For Spurs to win this year, they have to go in being the best, knowing that it’s theirs to lose.
Ginobili_is_God: I agree with a lot of your points. However, the NBA has 30 teams with the best players in the world scattered among them. What this translates to is that any team can beat any other team on any given night (Bobcats over Heat just an example).
However, when you have the best players in the league, which I firmly believe the Spurs do, another team will not beat you four out of seven times. Our team has superior chemistry and the best coach in the league. The Suns, who will most likely notch the number one seed, have not faced the injury problems that the Spurs have. I know Steve Nash has been injured but not as long as Duncan. Duncan is the force that drives our team, and without him, we are just an average team. As long as Duncan gets healthy in time, the Spurs WILL win it all, despite not being the number one seed.
------------------------
The judges have awarded the victory to ShoogarBear. Thanks goes to both bloggers and the judges.
Forget it, folks, it ain't happening. One thing that history has established is that the Spurs win championships only as frontrunners. They have to have homecourt advantage throughout and have clearly established themselves as the team playing the best going into the playoffs. And even then they may not be enough (can anyone say 1995 or 2004?).
This year is supposedly different. The Spurs started out as pre-season favorites and for most of the year were clearly the best team. There's no doubt that, when healthy, the Spurs have the best mix of talent, teamwork, coaching and depth. The argument goes that surely, once Duncan is healthy, they can overcome any obstacles against a higher-seeded Sun or Heat team.
Except, despite a personnel edge unmatched in team history, these Spurs are subject to the same frustrating weaknesses of their predecessors: poor free-throw shooting, propensity to offensive stagnation, and, most infuriatingly, the ability to blow any-sized lead. Their standard prescription for winning is to get the big lead early and hold on (i.e., frontrunning).
To win the title which seemed assured earlier, they must be healthy and generate a roll going into the postseason, AND they must have help from the other teams to knock competition from the #1 overall seed.
Ginobili_is_God: The Spurs do not need the number one seed. How many times have the Lakers won it without it?
The Spurs simply just need to be playing team basketball. Each play down the court, the ball needs to go through Tim Duncan. If that option is not available, let Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker slash through the lane for the layup or kick out to a three-point shooter.
The Spurs have been there while other good teams such as the Dallas Mavericks, Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns and Seattle Sonics have not. The Spurs are experienced and know that anyone on their bench at anytime throughout the game can come in and make an impact.
I know the number one seed would help because it would assure us home court advantage, however I feel that the Spurs are more than capable of winning a few playoff games on the road. If we end up with the two seed, which is looking more likely these days with the injury to Duncan, we would play the Nuggets. While they are playing great basketball, this is one team I feel that the Spurs could manhandle.
No Shooters + No Experience = No Second Round
After that, the Houston Rockets and Seattle Supersonics (both very good teams) would be up next. Although both teams have beat us during the regular season, I honestly think we will beat them in the playoffs due to our depth, experience and because the best player in the world is on our team. The only team that will give us problems in the playoffs is Miami, yet I say we would beat them in six.
The Spurs are the team I live and breathe for and I know they will win it at despite not having the number one seed.
ShoogarBear: Comparing the Spurs to the 2000-2004 Lakers is precisely the wrong thing to do. The most aggravating thing about the Lakers was their ability to turn on a switch when behind. The Spurs have their own special playoff karma.
Only twice have the Spurs won a series against a team with a better record: 1982 vs. Seattle and 1993 vs. Portland. Times they’ve lost to a lower seed? Too many to mention.
It has nothing to do with talent and teamwork, which is the best. It doesn’t really have to do with the opposition. It has to do with mental toughness and killer instinct, with the ability to pull out games that seem lost. Too many times these Spurs don’t have it, because of the lack of an on-the-court buttkicker.
For Spurs to win this year, they have to go in being the best, knowing that it’s theirs to lose.
Ginobili_is_God: I agree with a lot of your points. However, the NBA has 30 teams with the best players in the world scattered among them. What this translates to is that any team can beat any other team on any given night (Bobcats over Heat just an example).
However, when you have the best players in the league, which I firmly believe the Spurs do, another team will not beat you four out of seven times. Our team has superior chemistry and the best coach in the league. The Suns, who will most likely notch the number one seed, have not faced the injury problems that the Spurs have. I know Steve Nash has been injured but not as long as Duncan. Duncan is the force that drives our team, and without him, we are just an average team. As long as Duncan gets healthy in time, the Spurs WILL win it all, despite not being the number one seed.
------------------------
The judges have awarded the victory to ShoogarBear. Thanks goes to both bloggers and the judges.