ViceCity86
06-04-2012, 01:04 PM
1. Fact or Fiction: The Spurs are not living up to your expectations.
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: Fact. It's not so much that they lost both games in Oklahoma City, it's the way they lost. The 21 turnovers in Game 3. The lack of urgency for much of Game 4. Neither were signs of a veteran team poised to grab the series by the throat.
Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Fiction. I expected a band of crafty vets and skilled role players who pop the ball around the court with surgical precision, but are occasionally vulnerable to the athletic forays of a younger opponent. Sounds about right. Sometimes we forget that teams are never as good as their best basketball and never as lousy as their worst.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fiction. The Thunder just played the two best T-E-A-M games I've ever seen them play. Everybody was involved. I know that the Spurs had a 20-game winning streak, which kept them unbeaten for nearly 50 days, but I've come to praise the guys who ended all that as opposed to tying the weekend's monumental momentum swing to what the Spurs couldn't get done on the road. When Serge Ibaka, Kendrick Perkins and Nick Collison shoot a combined 22-for-25, it's probably time for some hat-tips.
David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Fiction. This just in: The Thunder are very, very good. Perhaps even great. This is exactly why I expected the series to go seven games.
Justin Verrier, ESPN.com: Fact, if only because the Spurs, after rolling off 10 straight in the playoffs and 20 consecutive wins overall, had begun to elicit KG-spittle-flying-anything's-possible-type of fantasies for what they could accomplish the rest of the way here. That the young Thunder, led by their formidable complementary players, could ding the San Antonio machine twice in a row is surprising. But that's simply a product of how good the old guys looked to begin with.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/5-on-5-120604/nba-playoffs-oklahoma-city-thunder-san-antonio-spurs-game-5-questions
J.A. Adande, ESPN.com: Fact. It's not so much that they lost both games in Oklahoma City, it's the way they lost. The 21 turnovers in Game 3. The lack of urgency for much of Game 4. Neither were signs of a veteran team poised to grab the series by the throat.
Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: Fiction. I expected a band of crafty vets and skilled role players who pop the ball around the court with surgical precision, but are occasionally vulnerable to the athletic forays of a younger opponent. Sounds about right. Sometimes we forget that teams are never as good as their best basketball and never as lousy as their worst.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Fiction. The Thunder just played the two best T-E-A-M games I've ever seen them play. Everybody was involved. I know that the Spurs had a 20-game winning streak, which kept them unbeaten for nearly 50 days, but I've come to praise the guys who ended all that as opposed to tying the weekend's monumental momentum swing to what the Spurs couldn't get done on the road. When Serge Ibaka, Kendrick Perkins and Nick Collison shoot a combined 22-for-25, it's probably time for some hat-tips.
David Thorpe, Scouts Inc.: Fiction. This just in: The Thunder are very, very good. Perhaps even great. This is exactly why I expected the series to go seven games.
Justin Verrier, ESPN.com: Fact, if only because the Spurs, after rolling off 10 straight in the playoffs and 20 consecutive wins overall, had begun to elicit KG-spittle-flying-anything's-possible-type of fantasies for what they could accomplish the rest of the way here. That the young Thunder, led by their formidable complementary players, could ding the San Antonio machine twice in a row is surprising. But that's simply a product of how good the old guys looked to begin with.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/5-on-5-120604/nba-playoffs-oklahoma-city-thunder-san-antonio-spurs-game-5-questions