Bowen: Spurs biggest weakness is they haven't lost a game

[Keepin' it real]

I got slammed when I suggested this during round 2. But I knew I was right. Three-time champion Spur Bruce Bowen just confirmed my belief on SportsCenter. The fact that Bowen agrees with my opinion (and that a lot of Spurstalk members disagree with my opinion) makes me think that I'm onto something.

Heading to the game, go Spurs!

:flag::flag::flag:

[Matty2Cool]

It's just common sense after a while the law of probabilities takes over, even if you have a really good team they are bound to lose one after a while. Riding an 18 game winning streak into the conference finals kind of sucks cause i feel we are due for a loss, but at the same time when I see them play i feel like we are pretty unbeatable. maybe we'll make history and just keep winning. :toast

[GinobiliForTres]

I don't care about the streak, but at least make it 19 straight before they lose again.

[dmon35]

its common sense but IMO, just cause they havent lost a game doesnt mean they dont know how to bounce back. Lakers went 15-1 in 2011. They lost a game, but they handled it. Not comparing, just saying its not doomsday should the Spurs lose a game.

[Man In Black]

Tbh he said a game. That doesn't mean the series and the Spurs have won titles either way.
SPURS IN 5! One for the thumb!

[spursfan1000]

They haven't lost a game but they did over come that 24 point deficit last series,

[JRHernandez88]

That's because we haven't played a team at our level in the playoffs yet. What were we supposed to do give games away? Losing to a team you know you can beat wouldnt of tested anything. It's ok though OKC will give us a challenge all spurs fan have been waiting on.

[ElNono]

If that's the biggest weakness, Spurs are in good shape...

[tesseractive]

It's just common sense after a while the law of probabilities takes over, even if you have a really good team they are bound to lose one after a while. Riding an 18 game winning streak into the conference finals kind of sucks cause i feel we are due for a loss, but at the same time when I see them play i feel like we are pretty unbeatable. maybe we'll make history and just keep winning. :toast

It's not about being due for a loss. Losing tells you what you need to improve. It identifies holes so you can develop ways to fix them. It reminds you of exactly how much effort you have to put in every game in order to secure a win, to keep people from putting in 85% effort games instead of 100% effort games.

Not losing for too long can make you think you don't have holes, but every team has holes. Even if the team somehow won out for the rest of the season it would still have holes -- it would just mean that no one was able to take advantage of those holes enough to win.

Think about how that Laker loss galvanized the team and several improvements were made to make the team even better. We haven't had to make adjustments like that in a month and a half. That's a long time.

[honestfool84]

I got slammed when I suggested this during round 2. But I knew I was right. Three-time champion Spur Bruce Bowen just confirmed my belief on SportsCenter. The fact that Bowen agrees with my opinion (and that a lot of Spurstalk members disagree with my opinion) makes me think that I'm onto something.

Heading to the game, go Spurs!

:flag::flag::flag:

what if the Spurs go 16-0? will there be a big * at their championship presentation?


"The biggest downfall and weakness that this Spurs squad will always be remembered by was that they didn't lose any games. San Antonio, it is my pleasure to present to you the Larry O'Brien trophy. - David Stern

:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

Bruce reaching for any kind of attention-grabbing, pseudo-perceptive bow-tie take. FAIL

[SA210]

You play to win EVERY game.

Let's go Spurs, LEAVE NO DOUBT

[Budkin]

The thing is that we're so good who gives a shit if we lose a game... does it automatically mean we'll lose 2,3,4? Most likely no.

[racm]

It's not about being due for a loss. Losing tells you what you need to improve. It identifies holes so you can develop ways to fix them. It reminds you of exactly how much effort you have to put in every game in order to secure a win, to keep people from putting in 85% effort games instead of 100% effort games.

Not losing for too long can make you think you don't have holes, but every team has holes. Even if the team somehow won out for the rest of the season it would still have holes -- it would just mean that no one was able to take advantage of those holes enough to win.

Think about how that Laker loss galvanized the team and several improvements were made to make the team even better. We haven't had to make adjustments like that in a month and a half. That's a long time.

And now Bonner has done his playoff disappearing act and Manu is sandbagging.

I notice that in every championship year save 1999, the Spurs lose at least one Game 1.

[TampaDude]

And now Bonner has done his playoff disappearing act and Manu is sandbagging.

I notice that in every championship year save 1999, the Spurs lose at least one Game 1.

Well, this is another lockout year, so maybe we go 16-0, eh? :hat

[100%duncan]

:cry Shoulda copyrighted it :cry

[dunkman]

The Spurs will have the op to grind out some wins against OKC and if they get to win the series vs whoever emerges from the east. While I agree with Bowen, the Spurs were superior to the Jazz and the Clips. It reminds me of the 99 run, but the Blazers games were close.

That run should have been 15:1, MSG folks would disconnect the shot clock for the Spurs and other wired things happened in the game the Spurs lost in NYC. Perhaps the Spurs also wanted to close out the Knicks in SA.

The team can still learn from every possession that missed to score, every TO, every defensive mistake. Games 3 and 4 @ staples were close.

[racm]

The Spurs will have the op to grind out some wins against OKC and if they get to win the series vs whoever emerges from the east. While I agree with Bowen, the Spurs were superior to the Jazz and the Clips. It reminds me of the 99 run, but the Blazers games were close.

That run should have been 15:1, MSG folks would disconnect the shot clock for the Spurs and other wired things happened in the game the Spurs lost in NYC. Perhaps the Spurs also wanted to close out the Knicks in SA.

The team can still learn from every possession that missed to score, every TO, every defensive mistake. Games 3 and 4 @ staples were close.

Well TP played average in Game 4 and let CP3 get the best of him, hence the close score.

[therealtruth]

Game 1 isn't the best game to lose. As you win games the chance of winning the series improves. I remember Phil Jackson was like 47-0 when he won the first game. The same probably can't be said for Pop but game 1 is still an important momentum game especially if at home.

[Obstructed_View]

Bowen's right.

Name a bigger weakness for the Spurs.

I believe his point is that the Spurs don't really have any major weaknesses.

[NRHector]

if they lose a game they'll come back with a vengance, that's how good the Spurs are