If You Guys Dont Catch Us Now You Never Will

[Hassdabballman]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately. And this is a message to u spurs fan that if u guys wait untill the pistons turn there game on once again to try to catch them for home court, it wont happen. If it is going to happen for u, it has to happen now. Pistons are just in a slump right now and will turn it on anytime now. Gl the rest of the way and go PISTONS.

[Parkersgirl9]

anyways....what if we don't catch them? you don't think the spurs have the confidence to beat Pistons on thier homecourt. Believe me they do....

[Trainwreck2100]

That's just swell

[Amuseddaysleeper]

anyways....what if we don't catch them? you don't think the spurs have the confidence to beat Pistons on thier homecourt. Believe me they do....

no we dont

[Leetonidas]

no we dont

Maybe YOU don't, but I'm sure to the Spurs, a game is a game.

The Pistons can't just "turn it on" anytime they want, because if they could, they would have beaten Washington and LA.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately. And this is a message to u spurs fan that if u guys wait untill the pistons turn there game on once again to try to catch them for home court, it wont happen. If it is going to happen for u, it has to happen now. Pistons are just in a slump right now and will turn it on anytime now. Gl the rest of the way and go PISTONS.
This post reeks of fear http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_18.gif

[rayray2k8]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately. And this is a message to u spurs fan that if u guys wait untill the pistons turn there game on once again to try to catch them for home court, it wont happen. If it is going to happen for u, it has to happen now. Pistons are just in a slump right now and will turn it on anytime now. Gl the rest of the way and go PISTONS.

Us? Did the pistons just sign you off waivers?
that you delfino?? :lol

[SenorSpur]

Maybe YOU don't, but I'm sure to the Spurs, a game is a game.

The Pistons can't just "turn it on" anytime they want, because if they could, they would have beaten Washington and LA.

Those back-to-back games are the great equalizer for all top-tier teams.

[DarkReign]

Move along folks. Nothing to see here...

[rayray2k8]

I guess the dumb fuck doesnt know BOTH dallas and san antonio are just a 1 1/2 game back. Had they, meaning the spurs of take both the clippers and laker games on the back-to-backs, It would of only been .5, but that wasnt the case.. Those back to backs are KILLERS!! I dont know why a piston fan, a REAL piston fan would make a thread like this.. People here will think that you're afraid the pistons would loss HCA.
Are you starting to lose faith in your team? Because thats the only thing i can think of, that would make you do this..
I'll tell you whats gonna happen.. its gonna go down to the wire. and even IF the spurs tie the pistons for the best record, they will still have HCA, throughout the playoffs. Happy?
:rolleyes

[SilverPlayer]

With the new format 2-3-2 in the finals, homecourt can very quickly become a disadvantage. If you lose one of the first two games, its a hell of a lot of pressure facing the team on their home court 3 times. I was surprised last year how much that actually seemed to distort the momentum.

[Parkersgirl9]

no we dont

you may not have confidence, but I'm sure the Spurs know that they can very well beat Detroit no matter on what court....

[mavsfan1000]

Who cares that much anyways? Detroit hardly brings any fear to any team in the West.

[SoCalSpursFan]

Who cares that much anyways? Detroit hardly brings any fear to any team in the West.

Now I may not be a fan of "Mavsfan" but not gonna lie, he made A LOT of sense with that comment. :fro

[Rummpd]

Agree with Mavsfan1000!

[exstatic]

no we dont
Speak for yourslef, narcolep.

[greyforest]

we all know its gonna come down to pistons/spurs in the final again, so why not save the shit talkin until closer to then?

[Solid D]

If You Guys Dont Catch Us Now You Never Will

What would you suggest we do, cheer louder? I think we fans could do that.

[ata]

no we dont
TPark's boyfriend?

[FreshPrince22]

blah blah blah. Homecourt Shmomecourt

[pache100]

Maybe YOU don't, but I'm sure to the Spurs, a game is a game.

The Pistons can't just "turn it on" anytime they want, because if they could, they would have beaten Washington and LA.

Exactly. If they can do that, why haven't they already done it?

This reminds me of Phil Jackson's asterisk by the first Spurs championship. If it was so frickin' easy because of a shortened season...why in the hell didn't the LAKERS win?????

[SAGambler]

Here's the big deal. The Pistons claim HCA cost them the championship last year. So, their focus this year was to get HCA. It looked for a while like they may coast there. But now that is not looking to be a certainty. Some of the Pistons fans are concerned that if they lose this race, it will get into their heads and cause them to lose again.

Oh, and BTW.. This old crap of a team can "turn it on anytime they like" is just that. Crap. It's right up there with the "We were just too tired" excuse.

When you are losing, you are losing and the old "we can turn it on anytime" is just another way of saying, maybe we aren't as good as we thought we were.

[cheguevara]

WGAF. Spurs job is not to catch you. It's to win a championship.

[baseline bum]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately. And this is a message to u spurs fan that if u guys wait untill the pistons turn there game on once again to try to catch them for home court, it wont happen. If it is going to happen for u, it has to happen now. Pistons are just in a slump right now and will turn it on anytime now. Gl the rest of the way and go PISTONS.

Are you kidding me? Your next 4 games are against New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Charlotte (in no particular order).

[Please_dont_ban_me]

Is it a guarantee they will turn it on again?

Maybe they're finally wearing out a little. You can't play at a sustained excellent pace forever.

[Obstructed_View]

Last I checked, the Pistons are the team on a mission and the team desperate to have HCA. The Spurs are a game back and STILL aren't playing their best basketball.

The pee-pee dance in Detroit has begun!

[Marklar MM]

Last I checked, the Pistons are the team on a mission and the team desperate to have HCA. The Spurs are a game back and STILL aren't playing their best basketball.

The pee-pee dance in Detroit has begun!

LOL

[austinfan]

Last I checked, the Pistons are the team on a mission and the team desperate to have HCA. The Spurs are a game back and STILL aren't playing their best basketball.

The pee-pee dance in Detroit has begun!

lol Detroit isn't underestimating us, that's for sure, but I wouldn't say they're exactly quaking in their boots over us. We're two teams who are extremely closely matched. I can easily see this year's Finals going to seven games again.

[bdubya]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately.

What you think, Hass - is Tay overpaid or not?

[mrose31]

Pistons have been playing like shit lately. And this is a message to u spurs fan that if u guys wait untill the pistons turn there game on once again to try to catch them for home court, it wont happen. If it is going to happen for u, it has to happen now. Pistons are just in a slump right now and will turn it on anytime now. Gl the rest of the way and go PISTONS.


Ok trade schedules with us and we will catch up to you guys.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

lol Detroit isn't underestimating us, that's for sure, but I wouldn't say they're exactly quaking in their boots over us. We're two teams who are extremely closely matched. I can easily see this year's Finals going to seven games again.

and thats the problem. if this year's game 6 and 7 are in detroit and not SA, detroit's gonna win it not us. HCA is gonna be a bigger factor than you guys think. yes you have to win on the road, but the ONE game we won over there, we barely did it had it not been for detroit's heroics. we had a chance to close them out in game 6 last year on our own court but due to being typicaly mentally soft we couldn't seal the deal. so game 7 in auburn hills is going to go to detroit and with a battered TD and a hungrier than ever Detroit, i'll be amazed if it even goes to 7

[Tanya]

I don't understand the purpose of that pistons fan to start this thread.
But there is one thing I agree with him/her: The pistons have been playing like shit lately. ^^
They are losing their defensive identity. They have a soft coach this year. So if the spurs get the HCA this year... They sure will win.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

and thats the problem. if this year's game 6 and 7 are in detroit and not SA, detroit's gonna win it not us. HCA is gonna be a bigger factor than you guys think. yes you have to win on the road, but the ONE game we won over there, we barely did it had it not been for detroit's heroics. we had a chance to close them out in game 6 last year on our own court but due to being typicaly mentally soft we couldn't seal the deal. so game 7 in auburn hills is going to go to detroit and with a battered TD and a hungrier than ever Detroit, i'll be amazed if it even goes to 7

If it doesn't go 7 games HCA in the finals doesn't matter, so I don't know what you're so worried about.

[Rummpd]

If I was a Pistons fan I would be worried about my team right now - they have rarely played at the level of any of the first half of the season since the all star break.

Especially right now Detroit ought to be figuring out how to stop D. Wade and an inconsistent but still dangerous S. O'Neal first before they take them the 7th game again.

Right now I don't believe the Heat have any fear of the Pistons - nor should they - if Miami gets some outside shooting, they can give the Pistons all they can handle.

If Detroit gets through that landmine and the Spurs go through the tougher West it will be a real matchup and the Pistons, while deservedly confident, cannot count on an easy season vs. the defending champs.

If the champs can steal one of the first two games (if it is Detroit after all the work Pistons did to get HCA) things could get very interesting fast.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If it doesn't go 7 games HCA in the finals doesn't matter, so I don't know what you're so worried about.

true but if you're saying that in the spurs favor, do you think even with a hobbled TD (I have a very hard time believing that he'll be completely healthy come playoff time) we can beat detroit? I know we did it last year with ankle injured TD but manu played out of his mind. TP is doing great this year but Detroit will be good at keeping him out of the lane. I know i'm one of the most negative boardies on here and would LOVE for the spurs to defend their title, but if its detroit against us in the finals and we dont have the hca, i can't see this series going less than 6 games where the final one will be in auburn hills

[Winnipeg_Spur]

Honestly I'm a natural pessimist myself, but I try really hard to fight it, at least on this board. I just think if the Spurs lose against Detroit, it won't be HCA (or the lack thereof) that did them in.
In terms of their actual matchup with the Pistons I can't really disagree with your outlook. The Pistons biggest strength is interior defense and if you were building a team to beat the Spurs, that's where you'd start. SA's three best players are all at their absolute best when they're getting into the paint and scoring, and with the Wallace bros down there that's going to be really hard. The Spurs are going to have trouble scoring against Detroit, so their only hope is to try to lock up the Pistons themselves (and do a much better job on the glass). If they can do that (as they did effectively last year in Games 1, 2 and 7) then they just might be able to grind their way to another title. It's not going to be pretty, but it's possible.

[BigDaddyMatty]

and thats the problem. if this year's game 6 and 7 are in detroit and not SA, detroit's gonna win it not us. HCA is gonna be a bigger factor than you guys think. yes you have to win on the road, but the ONE game we won over there, we barely did it had it not been for detroit's heroics. we had a chance to close them out in game 6 last year on our own court but due to being typicaly mentally soft we couldn't seal the deal. so game 7 in auburn hills is going to go to detroit and with a battered TD and a hungrier than ever Detroit, i'll be amazed if it even goes to 7
Stop calling yourself a spurs fan please.

[mavsfan1000]

The truth hurts sometimes. I agree with Amuseddaysleeper.

[nkdlunch]

hahaha Pistons fans who cry about refs are so funny

what makes u think refs wont help us this year as well? since it's obvious the whole world plus the media plus the NBA wants us to win it :rolleyes

[jochhejaam]

Detroit hardly brings any fear to any team in the West.
Pistons goal isn't to create fear but to get wins and they're 22-5 against the West this year. Mission accomplished to this point.

[nkdlunch]

Mission accomplished to this point.

same goes for Spurs to this point.

[5ToolMan]

and thats the problem. if this year's game 6 and 7 are in detroit and not SA, detroit's gonna win it not us. HCA is gonna be a bigger factor than you guys think. yes you have to win on the road, but the ONE game we won over there, we barely did it had it not been for detroit's heroics. we had a chance to close them out in game 6 last year on our own court but due to being typicaly mentally soft we couldn't seal the deal. so game 7 in auburn hills is going to go to detroit and with a battered TD and a hungrier than ever Detroit, i'll be amazed if it even goes to 7

"Mentally Soft" would best describe the one calling the THREE TIME Champion Spurs mentally soft. LOL!

[Amuseddaysleeper]

"Mentally Soft" would best describe the one calling the THREE TIME Champion Spurs mentally soft. LOL!

sorry but look at 2004. won SEVENTEEN straight games and HIT A WALL losing FOUR straight to the lakers in one of the most pitiful performances in playoff history. or how about the other time in 2001 i believe when we went to the wcf only to lose by an average of 20 points to the lakers and getting SWEPT after we had the #1 seed. I love my spurs, and just becuase i'm not a blind homer and over rate them on every little thing doesn't make me any less of a fan than any of you. i just look at them realistically. spurs need to close out games much much better and destroy a team when their down. everyone and their mother knows no team has blown more big leads in the playoffs then the spurs. I just hope this team can get healthy before its too late

[5ToolMan]

When Casey said "Statistics are the biggest liars" in baseball, he might have just as well have been talking about all the hype on the importance of HCA in the NBA Playoffs.

Who is the better team, not HCA is the determining factor on who advances and in the end, who wins in the NBA. Stat hounds get confused because the better teams most often seperate themselves from the competition and thus have the HCA most of the time.

But there are several examples where a team entered the playoffs better than its record indicated and HCA did nothing to prevent their greatness. Playoff seeding can be harmed by injury or perhaps by lasting effects from past years championship funk. It can also be elevated by teams who focus greatly on seeding thinking it will give them an easier pass to the title.

In the end, the spoils always go to the victor, with not always to those with HCA. Combined, the Rockets, Lakers, Pistons and Spurs own all of the last 19 NBA Titles. Many of these 19 squads had to win games on the road to overcome a lack of HCA. Each of these teams won because they were the better playoff team. None won just because they had HCA.

[ambchang]

Detroit is no doubt a strong opponent, strong defense + strong offense = unbelievable team, but there are some factors that work for the Spurs as well.
1. The Spurs have strong defense as well.
2. The Spurs have a strong offense as well.
3. Flip Saunders has always been known to be a regular season coach. He is also known as a genius on offense, but not much on defense. In the postseason, defense > offense. Now, the Pistons are still a strong offensive team because of the players, but then in the post season, game to game adjustment is extremely important, and that is the job of the coach.
4. The Pistons have been relatively healthy, at least to their starting five so far, the Spurs haven't, and yet the Spurs are only 1.5 games back in the much tougher WC.
5. The Spurs have been terrible in b2bs. Remove them, the Spurs have a better record. I am not arguing the Spurs are thus a better regular season team, because b2bs are part of the schedule, and in fact, the Spurs have the least b2bs of all teams this season. What I am trying to say is, the postseason doesn't have a lot of b2bs.

The most worrisome thing for a Spurs fan would be the two games that were played earlier in the season, and yes, they were embarrassing. I will see if the Spurs have any tactics against that.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Detroit is no doubt a strong opponent, strong defense + strong offense = unbelievable team, but there are some factors that work for the Spurs as well.
1. The Spurs have strong defense as well.
2. The Spurs have a strong offense as well.
3. Flip Saunders has always been known to be a regular season coach. He is also known as a genius on offense, but not much on defense. In the postseason, defense > offense. Now, the Pistons are still a strong offensive team because of the players, but then in the post season, game to game adjustment is extremely important, and that is the job of the coach.
4. The Pistons have been relatively healthy, at least to their starting five so far, the Spurs haven't, and yet the Spurs are only 1.5 games back in the much tougher WC.
5. The Spurs have been terrible in b2bs. Remove them, the Spurs have a better record. I am not arguing the Spurs are thus a better regular season team, because b2bs are part of the schedule, and in fact, the Spurs have the least b2bs of all teams this season. What I am trying to say is, the postseason doesn't have a lot of b2bs.

The most worrisome thing for a Spurs fan would be the two games that were played earlier in the season, and yes, they were embarrassing. I will see if the Spurs have any tactics against that.


sorry but if TD still has the PF problem if we get to face the pistons then we are fucked simple as that. he has barely any list whatsover and YES people even if TD was 100% he'd still have a ridicously hard time against sheed cuz there is no player in the league who gives timmy a harder matchup. manu also needs to wake the fuck up cuz if healso doesn't get fully healthy and plays out of his mind like he did so well in last years playoffs we arne't going anywhere. its great to see TP step up big time but with the pistosn interior D, if parker's outside shots arne't feeling he'll be virtually useless against the pistons. the pistons offense is better than our offense but I'd like to believe that our D is better than theirs. thankfully, defense wins championships, but if we arent totally healthy and on top of that fact that games 6 and 7 will be in auburn hills, i think it's gonna be a real uphill battle for us to win it all. we were a horry shot away from losing the championship last year and even though the best teams have to win on the road, it'd be hard to argue that playing game 7 on the road is incredibly tough and a disadvantage

[5ToolMan]

sorry but look at 2004. won SEVENTEEN straight games and HIT A WALL losing FOUR straight to the lakers in one of the most pitiful performances in playoff history. or how about the other time in 2001 i believe when we went to the wcf only to lose by an average of 20 points to the lakers and getting SWEPT after we had the #1 seed. I love my spurs, and just becuase i'm not a blind homer and over rate them on every little thing doesn't make me any less of a fan than any of you. i just look at them realistically. spurs need to close out games much much better and destroy a team when their down. everyone and their mother knows no team has blown more big leads in the playoffs then the spurs. I just hope this team can get healthy before its too late

If you have not figured out that hoops is a games of streaks yet, I am sure I can't help you. If you also don't understand the game is all about adjustments, you are clearly lost.

Hint: 2006 has nothing to do with 2004, or 2003, or 2002, or 2001 or ... or ... or ... unless you did not make any adjustments AND your team got no older. Since neither has ever happened with any team in history, your talk is mindless chatter.

The Spurs great loss in 2001 was to pretty solid and peaking Laker squad. After DA wen't down, it was clear the Spurs did not have the perimeter quickness and athleticism to hang. Only the undersized AD had a decent series. AJ, Smith and Ferry were mostly useless against the suddenly quicker, faster and more athletic Lakers perimeter.

I do not say the above to take credit from the great Lakers of 2001, but to point out that Pop both recognized and made adjustments to quickly correct the obvious problem. Between 2002 and 2003 Tony, Bowen, SJax and Manu changed this matchup and changed who prevailed as champions.

In 2004 the Spurs getting beat by the Lakers had nothing to do with being soft. It had to do with the Lakers making some solid adjustments AND the Spurs not overcomming .4 to allow the Lakers to steal the series. Considering the Lakers had a core that was three time NBA Champions and had added HOF support in Malone and Payton, I don't think the soft arguement flies.

After 2004 the Spurs again made adjustments that helped them seal the deal in 2005. Tony and Manu were given even bigger roles while important support was added in Barry, Beno and Nazr. And the 2005 Spurs became tougher as a unit, perhaps because they knew in their hearts they had let one slip away.

[5ToolMan]

sorry but if TD still has the PF problem if we get to face the pistons then we are fucked simple as that. he has barely any list whatsover and YES people even if TD was 100% he'd still have a ridicously hard time against sheed cuz there is no player in the league who gives timmy a harder matchup. manu also needs to wake the fuck up cuz if healso doesn't get fully healthy and plays out of his mind like he did so well in last years playoffs we arne't going anywhere. its great to see TP step up big time but with the pistosn interior D, if parker's outside shots arne't feeling he'll be virtually useless against the pistons. the pistons offense is better than our offense but I'd like to believe that our D is better than theirs. thankfully, defense wins championships, but if we arent totally healthy and on top of that fact that games 6 and 7 will be in auburn hills, i think it's gonna be a real uphill battle for us to win it all. we were a horry shot away from losing the championship last year and even though the best teams have to win on the road, it'd be hard to argue that playing game 7 on the road is incredibly tough and a disadvantage

Tim's play is starting to elevate from his February funk. And although Pop said he did not want Tim to shoot up too much for the PF because of side effects, he did not say they would not consider additional treatment as the playoffs near.

Tim played with 2 bum ankles last year, and still delivered enough to earn his 3rd MVP as he delivered the Spurs to ring #3. I am less concerned about the PF than playing with the 2 bum ankles. As Tim gets a little better, learns to play with it, learns to play through it, and gets some additional teatment to help with the pain as the playoffs near, he and the Spurs will be fine.

[Obstructed_View]

Heres a little reminder for the bloated heads of you spurs fans, in those first two games in the finals the refs won you those games by handing out 2 and 3 fouls to Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed in the first quarters making them sit for an entire quarter. Idiots. Pistons are going to stomp your team. I'd say you should be the ones more worried about making it to the finals compared to the Pistons since your conference is so elite. ^^ Thats the only reason Pistons want homecourt is because refs drink the water at your arena and get Pistons haterade in them.
Cool. The refs want the Spurs to win. REPEAT, BABY! :lol

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If you have not figured out that hoops is a games of streaks yet, I am sure I can't help you. If you also don't understand the game is all about adjustments, you are clearly lost.

Hint: 2006 has nothing to do with 2004, or 2003, or 2002, or 2001 or ... or ... or ... unless you did not make any adjustments AND your team got no older. Since neither has ever happened with any team in history, your talk is mindless chatter.

The Spurs great loss in 2001 was to pretty solid and peaking Laker squad. After DA wen't down, it was clear the Spurs did not have the perimeter quickness and athleticism to hang. Only the undersized AD had a decent series. AJ, Smith and Ferry were mostly useless against the suddenly quicker, faster and more athletic Lakers perimeter.

I do not say the above to take credit from the great Lakers of 2001, but to point out that Pop both recognized and made adjustments to quickly correct the obvious problem. Between 2002 and 2003 Tony, Bowen, SJax and Manu changed this matchup and changed who prevailed as champions.

In 2004 the Spurs getting beat by the Lakers had nothing to do with being soft. It had to do with the Lakers making some solid adjustments AND the Spurs not overcomming .4 to allow the Lakers to steal the series. Considering the Lakers had a core that was three time NBA Champions and had added HOF support in Malone and Payton, I don't think the soft arguement flies.

After 2004 the Spurs again made adjustments that helped them seal the deal in 2005. Tony and Manu were given even bigger roles while important support was added in Barry, Beno and Nazr. And the 2005 Spurs became tougher as a unit, perhaps because they knew in their hearts they had let one slip away.

anytime you're up 2-0 i dont care who its against and you lose the NEXT FOUR straight its cuz you're soft. that ws totally inexcusable. spurs should've taken care of business and also failed to make adjustments when the outside shots aren't falling. yes 2006 is different than 2005 but tim is playing much worse with his PF than he was with 2 bum ankles. spurs should have more than 3 championships

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If you have not figured out that hoops is a games of streaks yet, I am sure I can't help you. If you also don't understand the game is all about adjustments, you are clearly lost.

Hint: 2006 has nothing to do with 2004, or 2003, or 2002, or 2001 or ... or ... or ... unless you did not make any adjustments AND your team got no older. Since neither has ever happened with any team in history, your talk is mindless chatter.

The Spurs great loss in 2001 was to pretty solid and peaking Laker squad. After DA wen't down, it was clear the Spurs did not have the perimeter quickness and athleticism to hang. Only the undersized AD had a decent series. AJ, Smith and Ferry were mostly useless against the suddenly quicker, faster and more athletic Lakers perimeter.

I do not say the above to take credit from the great Lakers of 2001, but to point out that Pop both recognized and made adjustments to quickly correct the obvious problem. Between 2002 and 2003 Tony, Bowen, SJax and Manu changed this matchup and changed who prevailed as champions.

In 2004 the Spurs getting beat by the Lakers had nothing to do with being soft. It had to do with the Lakers making some solid adjustments AND the Spurs not overcomming .4 to allow the Lakers to steal the series. Considering the Lakers had a core that was three time NBA Champions and had added HOF support in Malone and Payton, I don't think the soft arguement flies.

After 2004 the Spurs again made adjustments that helped them seal the deal in 2005. Tony and Manu were given even bigger roles while important support was added in Barry, Beno and Nazr. And the 2005 Spurs became tougher as a unit, perhaps because they knew in their hearts they had let one slip away.

so what you're saying that the players aren' soft but the coach is :rolleyes

spurs not overcoming .4 = soft. they had 6 at the half but fell apart in the 4th quarter much like the spurs did in 2002 when they lead heading into the 4th in virtually every game except for game 6.

[Peter]

Go Raptors.

eh.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Go Raptors.

eh.

lol down only 3 after one qtr 24-27

[boutons_]

"I don't think the soft arguement flies."

it sure does fly.

Spurs won games1,2 easily.

Lakers adjust and shutdown the paint, Tim, Tony. Malone pushes Tim so far out of the
paint, he's nearly in the stands, an ineffective jump shooter.

Spurs Lose games 3,4 @Staples.

Game5 is 0.4 loss @SBC

Game6 eliminated @Staples

Spurs were not very good on the road in 03/04.
Winning on the road = tough
3 of the 4 playoff losses to Lakers were @Staples.

Compare above with Robert's 3G to win Game5 last season. Pistons, facing elimination, bounced right back and won Game6 easily @SBC.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

"I don't think the soft arguement flies."

it sure does fly.

Spurs won games1,2 easily.

Lakers adjust and shutdown the paint, Tim, Tony. Malone pushes Tim so far out of the
paint, he's nearly in the stands, an ineffective jump shooter.

Spurs Lose games 3,4 @Staples.

Game5 is 0.4 loss @SBC

Game6 eliminated @Staples

Spurs were not very good on the road in 03/04.
Winning on the road = tough
3 of the 4 playoff losses to Lakers were @Staples.

Compare above with Robert's 3G to win Game5 last season. Pistons, facing elimination, bounced right back and won Game6 easily @SBC.


:tu

[ambchang]

So a team losing a series = soft? I don't get it. The Lakers played well that season, and they matched up with the Spurs very well. Parker had no outside shot, and that has nothing to do with softness. You can't shoot the outside jumper, the defense sags in the paint, what are you going to do?
The Spurs, despite winning in 2003 and 2005, has a VERY notable weakness, perimeter shooting. Bowen, Horry, Barry, and Jackson helped somewhat, but the offense do not run through them. In 2004, the Lakers saw that, took some risks in leaving the perimeter players wide open, and paid off. You mentioned that the coach should make some adjustments, perhaps you can give some examples.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

So a team losing a series = soft? I don't get it. The Lakers played well that season, and they matched up with the Spurs very well. Parker had no outside shot, and that has nothing to do with softness. You can't shoot the outside jumper, the defense sags in the paint, what are you going to do?
The Spurs, despite winning in 2003 and 2005, has a VERY notable weakness, perimeter shooting. Bowen, Horry, Barry, and Jackson helped somewhat, but the offense do not run through them. In 2004, the Lakers saw that, took some risks in leaving the perimeter players wide open, and paid off. You mentioned that the coach should make some adjustments, perhaps you can give some examples.

pop shoulda figured out a way to get the interior game going in 2004 but duncan of course dissapeared completely going often times 30 minutes without a single fucking FG. we saw that same stat in last years finals where the entire nation was ready to call duncan overrated. i dont care how hurt you are or who you are, if you're the leader of your team (I'm referring to 2004 mostly) there is NO fucking way you go 30 minutes without a field goal. absolutely inexcusable. and its not about a team losing a series that makes them soft, its about a team controlling the series and clocking, and then falling apart completely mentally and showing an absolute lack of heart and crashing and burning when all is said and done. the pistons were able to rebound from the crushing game 5 loss to the spurs IN SA and the spurs just went away in the 2nd half of game 6 when they should've been playing their hearts out as their season was on the line. same with dallas when we were up 3-1 in the series in 2003 and like a bunch of fuck ups we threw away game 5 oN OUR OWN HOME FLOOR and nearly lost game 6 had it not been for kerr's miracle shooting that saved our asses, otherwise who knows what would've happend in a game 7 situation. don't even get me started on going up 3-1 and losing 4-3. hopefully the spurs can repeat this year, otherwise it'll be a shame to be one of the few champions in basketball that never repeated forever putting them in the bottom of 10th of teams who have won it all

[5ToolMan]

anytime you're up 2-0 i dont care who its against and you lose the NEXT FOUR straight its cuz you're soft. that ws totally inexcusable. spurs should've taken care of business and also failed to make adjustments when the outside shots aren't falling. yes 2006 is different than 2005 but tim is playing much worse with his PF than he was with 2 bum ankles. spurs should have more than 3 championships


Three of those loses were to a healthy Lakers squad that had a core of three time NBA Champions plus two additional HOF players as added support. While it was a sad time for a Spurs fan, one would be really stretching or totally ignorant of the game equate the only reason for the Spurs losing as them being soft. The forth game was the .4 game where the Spurs main fault was allowing a decent Lakers squad to have a shot for the win.

Before you say Tim is playing much worse with PF than last year, perhaps you need to look at the Spurs record. I would say Tim is measuring his game more, and allowing his teammates to do more. If anything, if Tim is anywhere near what he was last year in the playoffs, come playoff time, the Spurs are much harder to stop, as they have more known and confident options.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Three of those loses were to a healthy Lakers squad that had a core of three time NBA Champions plus two additional HOF players as added support. While it was a sad time for a Spurs fan, one would be really stretching or totally ignorant of the game equate the only reason for the Spurs losing as them being soft. The forth game was the .4 game where the Spurs main fault was allowing a decent Lakers squad to have a shot for the win.

Before you say Tim is playing much worse with PF than last year, perhaps you need to look at the Spurs record. I would say Tim is measuring his game more, and allowing his teammates to do more. If anything, if Tim is anywhere near what he was last year in the playoffs, come playoff time, the Spurs are much harder to stop, as they have more known and confident options.

oh i agree that it is EXTREMELY impressive that despites tim's nagging injury that the team is still on pace for their best season ever, and considering oru rich history thats pretty damn good, but if tim is shooting 6-9 like he did against NO, thats cool, cuz he shoot a solid %, but if he's gonna go 4-16 night in and night out and not grab boards which is what he seemed to be doing since the AS break, we're gonna be fucked against detroit. sheed will eat him alive as will ben wallace. but hopefully like i said, this team gets healthier and we all step up come playoff time.

[SequSpur]

Three of those loses were to a healthy Lakers squad that had a core of three time NBA Champions plus two additional HOF players as added support. While it was a sad time for a Spurs fan, one would be really stretching or totally ignorant of the game equate the only reason for the Spurs losing as them being soft. The forth game was the .4 game where the Spurs main fault was allowing a decent Lakers squad to have a shot for the win.

Before you say Tim is playing much worse with PF than last year, perhaps you need to look at the Spurs record. I would say Tim is measuring his game more, and allowing his teammates to do more. If anything, if Tim is anywhere near what he was last year in the playoffs, come playoff time, the Spurs are much harder to stop, as they have more known and confident options.

Tim Duncan sucks right now. It isn't about pacing himself or deferring. He just plain sucks.

[5ToolMan]

so what you're saying that the players aren' soft but the coach is :rolleyes

spurs not overcoming .4 = soft. they had 6 at the half but fell apart in the 4th quarter much like the spurs did in 2002 when they lead heading into the 4th in virtually every game except for game 6.

What I am saying is you can use the soft lable on any team that does win the NBA Title in any given year. Hell, you can use the soft lable on any team that does not overcome any challange on any given night. In the end, it is mostly mindless chatter and BS for those who don't understand the essence of the game called hoops.

The fact is each year or in each game only one team comes out on top. With this fact in mind, every team except the one that won is soft, or else they would have been the only team left standing. I call scoreboard here!

When you consider the Spurs have THREE RINGS and the Best Record in all of the NBA over the past 7 years, your soft arguement demonstrates it is your knowledge of the game or your perception that is soft.

Disrespect my view as seen through homer glasses all you want. My sight of the undisputed truth of the game says you are the one blind to reality.

[Peter]

lol down only 3 after one qtr 24-27


Down 8 at half.

[5ToolMan]

Tim Duncan sucks right now. It isn't about pacing himself or deferring. He just plain sucks.

I certainly consider you an expert on the subject. Sucking that is, as you certainly don't know jack about much else. :smokin

[Amuseddaysleeper]

What I am saying is you can use the soft lable on any team that does win the NBA Title in any given year. Hell, you can use the soft lable on any team that does not overcome any challange on any given night. In the end, it is mostly mindless chatter and BS for those who don't understand the essence of the game called hoops.

The fact is each year or in each game only one team comes out on top. With this fact in mind, every team except the one that won is soft, or else they would have been the only team left standing. I call scoreboard here!

When you consider the Spurs have THREE RINGS and the Best Record in all of the NBA over the past 7 years, your soft arguement demonstrates it is your knowledge of the game or your perception that is soft.

Disrespect my view as seen through homer glasses all you want. My sight of the undisputed truth of the game says you are the one blind to reality.

see but if you told me that a certain team would have the best record in the nba over the last 7 years and ONLY won 3 rings then that tells me that something is very wrong. call my perception wrong and blind all you want, but winning 6 of 7 is one thing, but to win 3 out 7 when you are on top of the league is a slight bit of a letdown

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Tim Duncan sucks right now. It isn't about pacing himself or deferring. He just plain sucks.
bwahahha

sequ you need your own "this week in the NBA with sequ" show

haha

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Down 8 at half.

down 3 now 59-62

[5ToolMan]

"I don't think the soft arguement flies."

it sure does fly.

Spurs won games1,2 easily.

Lakers adjust and shutdown the paint, Tim, Tony. Malone pushes Tim so far out of the
paint, he's nearly in the stands, an ineffective jump shooter.

Spurs Lose games 3,4 @Staples.

Game5 is 0.4 loss @SBC

Game6 eliminated @Staples


Spurs were not very good on the road in 03/04.
Winning on the road = tough
3 of the 4 playoff losses to Lakers were @Staples.

Compare above with Robert's 3G to win Game5 last season. Pistons, facing elimination, bounced right back and won Game6 easily @SBC.

Last I remember the "Soft" Pistons melted when it all counted in game #7.

And the big bad 2004 Lakers, the same team that took out the "Soft" Spurs suddenly turned to "Jello" as they were taken out in four straight by the Pistons.

As I said, any team that loses can be considered soft, as they did not bring what it took to win in a given game or series.

And as such, it would take one very soft in the mellon to argue that the Spurs are soft when compared to the rest of the NBA, as they have as many rings as any team in the last ten years AND have won more than any team in the entire league in that span.

The Spur are soft flies, my ass!

[5ToolMan]

see but if you told me that a certain team would have the best record in the nba over the last 7 years and ONLY won 3 rings then that tells me that something is very wrong. call my perception wrong and blind all you want, but winning 6 of 7 is one thing, but to win 3 out 7 when you are on top of the league is a slight bit of a letdown

Nice tap dancing.

I guess you missed that the Lakers and the Pistons both had and/or are having a decent runs over that time.

I guess you would go BACK AND FORTH debating that either the Lakers OR the Celtics were soft as they alternated dominating the rest of the league. LOL!

In NBA History, only the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have had a better 7 year stretches than the recent Spurs. Considering the Spurs are the new kids on the block AND the only team of those mentioned with a decent chance to soon add to their hardware, I would say it is not all bad for Spurs fans.

As I said, call my view blind homerism all you want. Scoreboard says you are the one who is blind to fact. :smokin

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Nice tap dancing.

I guess you missed that the Lakers and the Pistons both had and/or are having a decent runs over that time.

I guess you would go BACK AND FORTH debating that either the Lakers OR the Celtics were soft as they alternated dominating the rest of the league. LOL!

In NBA History, only the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have had a better 7 year stretches than the recent Spurs. Considering the Spurs are the new kids on the block AND the only team of those mentioned with a decent chance to soon add to their hardware, I would say it is not all bad for Spurs fans.

As I said, call my view blind homerism all you want. Scoreboard says you are the one who is blind to fact. :smokin

and yet they only managed 3 rings in those 7 years with arguably weaker competition. also during the last 10 years no team has dominated the league as much as the spurs. detroit didn't become hot shit till their 1st ring, MJ left the bulls, and shaq left the lakers, leaving SA as the only team with any true consistency and yet again, they only got 3 rings. you bring that stat to anyone and ask them to guess how many championships a team that has the best record over the last TEN years they'd be guessing AT LEAST 5 rings not 3

[cs100]

:bang :rolleyes :cuss :huh :flipoff

What year is this?

[Amuseddaysleeper]

:bang :rolleyes :cuss :huh :flipoff

What year is this?

ok so next time the mavs fan get angry when we dont give them a chance in the playoffs i'll let them know you allowed them to use that excuse :rolleyes

2006 is a whole new year and this team is on pace to do better than ever, the spurs are still one of the toughest teams in the league but i just don't think that they are consistently mentally tough as they have a lot more lapses then they should

[5ToolMan]

and yet they only managed 3 rings in those 7 years with arguably weaker competition. also during the last 10 years no team has dominated the league as much as the spurs. detroit didn't become hot shit till their 1st ring, MJ left the bulls, and shaq left the lakers, leaving SA as the only team with any true consistency and yet again, they only got 3 rings. you bring that stat to anyone and ask them to guess how many championships a team that has the best record over the last TEN years they'd be guessing AT LEAST 5 rings not 3

Shaq just left the Lakers two years ago AND landed on a decent team. Detroit is working on their 5th year in a row of 50+ wins AND perhaps their third trip to the finals in a row. And the Spurs have almost completly overhauled their roster three times over the last 7 years. Only Duncan remains the same from 1999. Only Duncan, Tony, Manu and Bowen return from 2003. And with far fewer changes than they have made in any one year in quite some time, they still added Finley, NVE and Oberto who together average over 48 minutes per game.

If anyone guessed 5 or more for how many championships were won by the best team in any of the 3 major american pro sports over the last 10 years, they would prove to be as ignorant and uninformed as you are being exposed as. :smokin

The Yankees have won 4 WS Titles in the past 10 years, yet have only managed a meager 2 since the Spurs won their first NBA Title in 1999, and none since 2000. The Patriots at 3 and the Broncos at 2 are the only teams with more than 1 Super Bowl Championships in the last 10 years. And in the NBA the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs are all tied with 3 titles each over the past 10 years.

Considering the Spurs have the best chance of adding to their hardware of all the teams in pro sports, your disrespect of the team you claim to support exposes you as foolish at best.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Shaq just left the Lakers two years ago AND landed on a decent team. Detroit is working on their 5th year in a row of 50+ wins AND perhaps their third trip to the finals in a row. And the Spurs have almost completly overhauled their roster three times over the last 7 years. Only Duncan remains the same from 1999. Only Duncan, Tony, Manu and Bowen return from 2003. And with far fewer changes than they have made in any one year in quite some time, they still added Finley, NVE and Oberto who together average over 48 minutes per game.

If anyone guessed 5 or more for how many championships were won by the best team in any of the 3 major american pro sports over the last 10 years, they would prove to be as ignorant and uninformed as you are being exposed as. :smokin

The Yankees have won 4 WS Titles in the past 10 years, yet have only managed a meager 2 since the Spurs won their first NBA Title in 1999, and none since 2000. The Patriots at 3 and the Broncos at 2 are the only teams with more than 1 Super Bowl Championships in the last 10 years. And in the NBA the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs are all tied with 3 titles each over the past 10 years.

Considering the Spurs have the best chance of adding to their hardware of all the teams in pro sports, your disrespect of the team you claim to support exposes you as foolish at best.

see thats where YOU'RE IGNORANT because once again, the team may have overhauled their roster fairly often and detroit may have had several 50 win seasons but san antonio was still THE BEST TEAM over the last 10 year span in ALL OF MAJOR SPORTS. so once again, winning only 3 titles in the LAST TEN YEARS would baffle someone when reading that stat of them havign the best record in ALL of the major sports. your homerism is being exposed to max, now please stfu

[5ToolMan]

see thats where YOU'RE IGNORANT because once again, the team may have overhauled their roster fairly often and detroit may have had several 50 win seasons but san antonio was still THE BEST TEAM over the last 10 year span in ALL OF MAJOR SPORTS. so once again, winning only 3 titles in the LAST TEN YEARS would baffle someone when reading that stat of them havign the best record in ALL of the major sports. your homerism is being exposed to max, now please stfu

It would only baffle an idiot. With the way you have been exposed we all understand your confusion. LOL!

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Well, the Red Wings have a chance to win their 4th SC in that time frame(though 95% of you don't consider hockey a major sport)...

[phyzik]

all kinds of tpark action going on in here...

[ambchang]

see but if you told me that a certain team would have the best record in the nba over the last 7 years and ONLY won 3 rings then that tells me that something is very wrong. call my perception wrong and blind all you want, but winning 6 of 7 is one thing, but to win 3 out 7 when you are on top of the league is a slight bit of a letdown
I guess this helps me understand your thinking. Perhaps you can go back, and see how many times the top team in the regular season actually won the NBA championship. If you can tell me that it is 6 out of 7 times, then great, call the Spurs soft, if not, go and admit that what you just said is simply a ridiculous claim.
I don't have time to go through 50+ years of NBA, so I will just look at it since 1990:
Year/Best Record/Championship
2005/Suns/Spurs
2004/Pacers/Detroit
2003/Spurs and Mavs/Spurs
2002/Kings/Lakers
2001/Spurs/Lakers
2000/Lakers/Lakers
1999/Spurs and Jazz/Spurs
1998/Bulls and Jazz/ Bulls
1997/Bulls/Bulls
1996/Bulls/Bulls
1995/Spurs/Rockets
1994/Sonics/Rockets
1993/Suns/Bulls
1992/Bulls/Bulls
1991/Blazers/Bulls
1990/Lakers/Pistons

In 16 years, which I consider to be a representative sample, especially a close reflection of the NBA at this stage, the best regular teams won the title 7 times, with the Spurs doing it 2 out of 4 times (slightly above average). Taking the Bulls from the equation, which did it 4 out of 4 times, and is probably one of the most dominant teams in the history of the league, the best regular season team has won the title 3 out of 12 times, in fact, the ONLY team other than the Spurs and the Bulls to accomplish that in the last 16 years was the Lakers, who did it once.
The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Pacers, Jazz and Kings have a total of ZERO titles with their stellar record, it is not because they suck, or because they were mentally soft, it simply is because it is THAT hard to win a championship.
I would have guessed that a fan would be more grateful for his/her favourite sports team when the team has regularly churned out regular season and postseason success, but I guess I was wrong. Perhaps there were Bull fans in the 90s who complained about the team never going 15-0 in the postseason, and 82-0 in the regular season. :rolleyes

[Peter]

Thanks for digging that up. I found myself contemplating that very issue the other day.

It's ok, the Spurs will just go into their house again and....

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/04-05NBA_Finals/Images/Horry.jpg

http://www.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/slideshows/show_618/spurs_game5_14.jpg

...the rest is history.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I guess this helps me understand your thinking. Perhaps you can go back, and see how many times the top team in the regular season actually won the NBA championship. If you can tell me that it is 6 out of 7 times, then great, call the Spurs soft, if not, go and admit that what you just said is simply a ridiculous claim.
I don't have time to go through 50+ years of NBA, so I will just look at it since 1990:
Year/Best Record/Championship
2005/Suns/Spurs
2004/Pacers/Detroit
2003/Spurs and Mavs/Spurs
2002/Kings/Lakers
2001/Spurs/Lakers
2000/Lakers/Lakers
1999/Spurs and Jazz/Spurs
1998/Bulls and Jazz/ Bulls
1997/Bulls/Bulls
1996/Bulls/Bulls
1995/Spurs/Rockets
1994/Sonics/Rockets
1993/Suns/Bulls
1992/Bulls/Bulls
1991/Blazers/Bulls
1990/Lakers/Pistons

In 16 years, which I consider to be a representative sample, especially a close reflection of the NBA at this stage, the best regular teams won the title 7 times, with the Spurs doing it 2 out of 4 times (slightly above average). Taking the Bulls from the equation, which did it 4 out of 4 times, and is probably one of the most dominant teams in the history of the league, the best regular season team has won the title 3 out of 12 times, in fact, the ONLY team other than the Spurs and the Bulls to accomplish that in the last 16 years was the Lakers, who did it once.
The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, Pacers, Jazz and Kings have a total of ZERO titles with their stellar record, it is not because they suck, or because they were mentally soft, it simply is because it is THAT hard to win a championship.
I would have guessed that a fan would be more grateful for his/her favourite sports team when the team has regularly churned out regular season and postseason success, but I guess I was wrong. Perhaps there were Bull fans in the 90s who complained about the team never going 15-0 in the postseason, and 82-0 in the regular season. :rolleyes

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team

and i highly doubt that the answer is B

and if you're #1 in the league there's no reason for you to NOT win the title barring injuries. you got to the #1 spot by playing well. if you cant do it when it matters and go all the way, then you just dont have what it takes.


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Thanks for digging that up. I found myself contemplating that very issue the other day.

It's ok, the Spurs will just go into their house again and....

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/04-05NBA_Finals/Images/Horry.jpg

http://www.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/slideshows/show_618/spurs_game5_14.jpg

...the rest is history.


i hope so man but unfortunately those pics are from 2005 and in 2006 the only people doing that were the pistons in our house and theirs

[Melmart1]

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

ONLY three rings? Jesus, you will never be happy, will you? Oh, and ONLY having three rings does not necessarily mean you are soft or not a playoff team. It could mean that injuries happen, it could mean that shit happens. It could mean that a Lakers team was plain better than you for awhile.

If three rings is not enough, I suggest you become a Bulls or Lakers fan and bask in their past glory.

[Peter]

Reg season means nothing. Sack up.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

ONLY three rings? Jesus, you will never be happy, will you? Oh, and ONLY having three rings does not necessarily mean you are soft or not a playoff team. It could mean that injuries happen, it could mean that shit happens. It could mean that a Lakers team was plain better than you for awhile.

If three rings is not enough, I suggest you become a Bulls or Lakers fan and bask in their past glory.

if the lakers team was plain better than the "best team of the last 10 years" must be a misleading stat if we werent the true "best team" i'm not saying i'm dissatisfied with their ring count. i'm not the only one who think the team is soft. in 99 they were incredible going 16-2 in the playoffs but they had a lot of letdowns in 2003 but thankfully still won it and 2005 some letdowns as well but at the end they got the ring which mattered. but 2004 was absolutely inexcusable as was 2002 when we had the lead going into the 4th of EVERY game except for game 6. thats not being mentally tough enough to take care of business. were other teams obivously better? yes, but if we're gonna do the "best team of major sports of the last 10 years" which is quite the thing to have on your resume, 3 rings is a letdown

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Reg season means nothing. Sack up.


true. but unfortunately the pistons aren't a reg season team by any means. if tim's PF goes away come playoff time we should be fine. if not well...... :depressed

[Melmart1]

So who was a better team in the last ten years that won more than 3 rings, in any sport? I have a feeling there are no too many answers to that question, which proves that you are full of it. 3 in 10, with potential for more. You act like they have no chance in hell to win anymore rings. But even if they didn't, 3 in the last 10 will put them in some pretty elite company.

And who exactly said they were the best team of the last 10 years? Why does this even matter? Sounds pretty subjective and inconsequential to me.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

So who was a better team in the last ten years that won more than 3 rings, in any sport? I have a feeling there are no too many answers to that question, which proves that you are full of it. 3 in 10, with potential for more. You act like they have no chance in hell to win anymore rings. But even if they didn't, 3 in the last 10 will put them in some pretty elite company.

And who exactly said they were the best team of the last 10 years? Why does this even matter? Sounds pretty subjective and inconsequential to me.


according to the stats the spurs have had the best record in ALL PRO SPORTS of the last 10 years. the lakers are better than the spurs of the last 10 years b/c they truly were dominant winning 3 straight when the spurs have yet to defend their title once much less twice. the lakers broke apart after choking to the pistons. i'm not saying the spurs dont deserve to be respected, or are a shit team, they are simply soft. they dont have the killer mentality that the early 2000's lakers had, the 90's bulls or even the yankees had for a slight amount of time. and of course, in 2006 they could repeat for the 1st time and this whole conversation could be mute cuz 4 out of 8 aint bad at all. i'm just talking about the last 10 years and the "best w-l record of the last 10 years in all pro sports" which is an impressive thing to be #1 on. but when you only have 3 rings to show for it when you've been on average what shoud]ld be #1 over the last 10 years, it means you've missed out on a lot more oppurtunities than you should have. and of course the spurs have chances to win more rings, its not like TD's retired and manu got traded. I'm just saying as it stands, the spurs arent a mentally tough as nails team like a majority of the championship teams are. there's a reason why they're listed towards the bottom of the "greatest nba champions of all time" ESPN once put the 2003 spurs like 2nd from last place on their greatest nba champions ever list. i'm not saying what espn says is 100% correct, but it does make you wonder

[Melmart1]

So... YOU are saying the Spurs are best in last 10 years. And based on YOUR assumptions of what that entails, the Spurs should have had more rings.

Well, I am sure the Spurs are just heartbroken that they don't meet your standards. Why don't you wait until Tim Duncan retires and then tell me how dissapointed you are in the amount of rings they had.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

So... YOU are saying the Spurs are best in last 10 years. And based on YOUR assumptions of what that entails, the Spurs should have had more rings.

Well, I am sure the Spurs are just heartbroken that they don't meet your standards. Why don't you wait until Tim Duncan retires and then tell me how dissapointed you are in the amount of rings they had.

see there's no reason for that. i'm not out here to piss people off i'm just stating my opinion. if i "hated" the spurs or were truly "disgusted" with them why post here and be a fan? I've loved the team since '98 or so and will continue to support them regardless of what happens. am i a little bit too pessimistic for my own good? probably, but so what? I'm just one guy, i dont get why you all need to get your panties in a wad, i'm just saying the spurs should have more than 3 rings and aren't as dominating as other champions have been. they are the only team along with detroit to not have repeated their title since 1984. a ring is a ring, so maybe who cares if they dont do it as dominatingly as the other teams of the past. I'm just saying based on potential we should've at least won it all in 2004 and 2002. and had duncan not gotten injured in 2000 who knows? you guys attack personally way too much and get so offended so easily its ridiculous. take a page from kori's mellow attitude. there's a reason she's as respected as she is.

[Peter]

In 1995 did anyone anticipate the 6th seeded and defending champs repeating? Christ, we have the possibility of not getting homecourt in one series and suddenly the season's over. Well great. I guess I'll chop off my nutsack today.

[Melmart1]

Trust me, you are hardly getting my panties in a wad. I just find it hard to believe that any fan of the Spurs could possibly be dissapointed in all this team has accomplished. Take a step back and realize that Tim Ducan should be wearing Celtic green and maybe you will appreciate it more.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

In 1995 did anyone anticipate the 6th seeded and defending champs repeating? Christ, we have the possibility of not getting homecourt in one series and suddenly the season's over. Well great. I guess I'll chop off my nutsack today.


woah peter! is your boss at work asking you to come in on saturday AND sunday again!?! :lol i'm not saying the season's over, and what houston did in 1995 was amazing for sure, but with tim's nagging PF lets be realistic. pistons are tough and we may not have hca. if tim gets more healthy and manu plays upto last years level at playoff time we'll be fine. i mean we just have to wait and see, but this team right now today will not win the championship if the playoffs were to start today. thankfully they start in april

[Peter]

All we need is health in June.

[cs100]

The Spurs have NOT had the best record in all pro sports. The Spurs have had the best Winning Percentage in all of Sports msince Tim was signed. There is a difference. The reason is that year in and year out they are up there with the best. Only one team in 30 can win a championship. Does that mean that there are 29 soft teams and one great team? If you are one of the top 4-8 teams left standing (2nd round and on), this increases your winning percentage. To say a team is soft that reaches this level year in and year out is oxymoronic, IMO. All it means is that there are some pieces missing to make it to that final step. The Spurs have done that by adding TP and Manu. I agree that they should have won last year, but they were NOT soft. They just couldn't make shots to close out game five.

This year, the Spurs have the best record in games decided by 6 or less points. I think that even if Tim is not 100%, we can still win the title. Tim was playing on TWO sprained ankles last finals and we won. It was close and competitive, but we won.

[5ToolMan]

Glad to see other Spurs fans speaking and shattering daysleeper's contention that the Spurs are soft. Scoreboard says he is just a mindless parrot repeating what other fools have told him to think.

Wake up DAYSLEEPER! Playing tough defense is not soft. Being the toughest defense AND having the highest winning percentage AND having as much hardware as any team AND having more hardware than all but 2 teams over the last 10 years are not accomplishments of a soft team.

Your "Spurs are soft ... because daysleeper says they are soft" does not pass the smell test when put up against SCOREBOARD!


When you wake up, you really need to punt. :smokin

[ambchang]

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team

and i highly doubt that the answer is B

and if you're #1 in the league there's no reason for you to NOT win the title barring injuries. you got to the #1 spot by playing well. if you cant do it when it matters and go all the way, then you just dont have what it takes.


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means
Could you please read my full post before posting? In the last 16 seasons, only 3 teams who had the best regular season record won the championship. The Bulls did it 4 out of 4 times, the Spurs did it 2 out of 4 times, and the Lakers did it once. A whole slew of other teams couldn't get the crown after winning the most regular season games.
The Spurs won 3 championships in its history, and to put that in perspective, only the Celtics (16), Lakers (14), and Bulls (6) have won more than that, the Pistons did it 3 times as well. The 76ers won it twice, but won it another time when they were the Syracuse Nationals. Now you try and convince me winning a championship is not that hard. In the old days, where there were 8 teams, the chance of getting a ring is of course easier, but today, with 30 teams, it is extremely hard to win a championship. Providing winning a championship is purely random (which of course it isn't, it takes a team 90 years to win 3 championships), the Spurs did it in only 28 years, that is an AMAZING feat (I am excluding those ABA days).

[ambchang]

if the lakers team was plain better than the "best team of the last 10 years" must be a misleading stat if we werent the true "best team" i'm not saying i'm dissatisfied with their ring count. i'm not the only one who think the team is soft. in 99 they were incredible going 16-2 in the playoffs but they had a lot of letdowns in 2003 but thankfully still won it and 2005 some letdowns as well but at the end they got the ring which mattered. but 2004 was absolutely inexcusable as was 2002 when we had the lead going into the 4th of EVERY game except for game 6. thats not being mentally tough enough to take care of business. were other teams obivously better? yes, but if we're gonna do the "best team of major sports of the last 10 years" which is quite the thing to have on your resume, 3 rings is a letdown
Trust me, you must be the only person in the world who would hold the Spurs record against them. As I have shown on multiple location, there is some correlation between the seasons best regular team and that year's champs, but the correlation is quite low.
As for the last 10 years, it only means that the Spurs management has been able to rebuild the team while not taking the team out of contention. To do the math, a team could be ridiculously dominating for a few years (see the Bulls), but then drop off the face of the earth. In the few years of domination, they win championships, but over a long period of time, their record is not as stellar because the average is dragged down by the next few years of suckiness. The Spurs were able to be a team who contends for a title WHILE rebuilding, and that is an amazing accomplishment. If you would rather the Spurs not think about the future, and put all the focus in one year, you will not see a championship in 2005, you would not have seen a championship in 2003, and I would love to ask you how you could have improved the team over the last 10 years, year by year, so that they would have won MORE than 3 championship.

[ambchang]

see there's no reason for that. i'm not out here to piss people off i'm just stating my opinion. if i "hated" the spurs or were truly "disgusted" with them why post here and be a fan? I've loved the team since '98 or so and will continue to support them regardless of what happens. am i a little bit too pessimistic for my own good? probably, but so what? I'm just one guy, i dont get why you all need to get your panties in a wad, i'm just saying the spurs should have more than 3 rings and aren't as dominating as other champions have been. they are the only team along with detroit to not have repeated their title since 1984. a ring is a ring, so maybe who cares if they dont do it as dominatingly as the other teams of the past. I'm just saying based on potential we should've at least won it all in 2004 and 2002. and had duncan not gotten injured in 2000 who knows? you guys attack personally way too much and get so offended so easily its ridiculous. take a page from kori's mellow attitude. there's a reason she's as respected as she is.

you are a fan since 1998, and you are complaining about the Spurs not winning more titles? You are talking about the softness of the team? Try living through the disappointments in 80's and 90's. All I am saying is that you are a disgrace of a fan to hold a team's stellar record against them, and attack the team's integrity based on your own ignorance of NBA history.
The team went 15-2 in the postseason in 1999, not 16-2
The 84 and 86 Celtics did not repeat, the 85 Lakers did not repeat. The 90s were a time when we witnessed some of the largest disparity of talent in the league in a long time, thus massive changes in salary cap rules to even out the talent dispersion.
And no, we do not want to be like some other person and be cool about ignorant statements, people who refuse to read other's people's post, ignoring facts and historical figures, while continuously using ones own opinions as arguments.

[Peter]

Spurs fans also act like the team has been healthy for the entire season. All we need is health come April.

[ambchang]

btw, I am starting to wonder about the best record in pro sports in the last 10 years, in 96-97 (which is part of the last 10 years), the Spurs went 20-62, that is some pretty crappy record to drag down the average record.

[cs100]

ambchang, you need to reread my post. The Spurs have had the best winning percentage in pro sports since Duncan started playing. It is not the best record and it did not include the 96-97 season.

Just trying to help clarify the error posters are making in this thread. Thanks.

[Solid D]

i dont winning a championship is hard but being on top for that amoutn fo time and only having 3 rings to show for it either makes you

A) a soft team
B) a season team and not a playoff team

and i highly doubt that the answer is B

and if you're #1 in the league there's no reason for you to NOT win the title barring injuries. you got to the #1 spot by playing well. if you cant do it when it matters and go all the way, then you just dont have what it takes.


3 rings is great but the spurs aren't mentally tough by any means

Wow, I really do disagree with you here. Several analysts have pointed out that the Spurs close out games better than any other team in the NBA. Tim Legler the latest. The Spurs have never had the success they are having at this stage. It takes mental toughness and good execution to close out games the way the Spurs do and I just don't see how that can be questioned if you really stop to think.

[polandprzem]

Reg season means nothing. Sack up.

Yup they can go 0-82.

The postseason count :jack

[cs100]

Spurs are 8-1 when a game is decided by 3 points or less. This is the best in the league.

[Melmart1]

If Amuseddaysleeper is a "Realistic Spurs Fan" as he titled himself, then I wonder what the makes the rest of us who aren't jumping off of cliffs in March.

[boutons_]

"Spurs are 8-1 when a game is decided by 3 points or less."

This means the Spurs are soft, because they let 9 games be close. :lol

[Solid D]

:lol

[cs100]

:lmao

[Vinnie_Johnson]

:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

Sorry I couldn't help it.

[5ToolMan]

I wonder if daysleeper is tossing and turning all day, as he gets spanked again and again. :smokin

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If Amuseddaysleeper is a "Realistic Spurs Fan" as he titled himself, then I wonder what the makes the rest of us who aren't jumping off of cliffs in March.

haha no no if you knew me the thing is my title was obvious sarcasm. I'm the most pessimistic spurs fan out there always looking at the glass half full. you guys bring up some good points but there have been too many times where the spurs have choked. having said that are they a good team? of course, and if they repeat this year i think it would def. help solidify them as real champions since the one major knock people have on them is their inability to repeat. but yeah the "realistic spurs fan" is total sarcasm, otherwise like you said, if i'm the realistic one then 99% of the spurs fans woulda jumped off that cliff when we went 6-8 back in the 99 season! :lol

[Solid D]

The Spurs closed out the Suns well in the 4th tonight.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

The Spurs closed out the Suns well in the 4th tonight.

definitely. kudos to them! lets hope this streak continues into the playoffs

[5ToolMan]

[QUOTE=Amuseddaysleeper]but there have been too many times where the spurs have choked. having said that are they a good team? of course, and if they repeat this year i think it would def. help solidify them as real champions since the one major knock people have on them is their inability to repeat./QUOTE]

Hey dickweed, THINK real hard on the fact that the Spurs have won more games than any team in sports AND have are tied with the Lakers with the most Championships since Duncan entered the league. This should tell all but the clueless that the Spurs must have choaked less than any team in pro sports during that time. Think real hard daysleeper. Would you agree with that? Or you that clueless?

On the second highlighted word above, you assert the Spurs are not "Real Champions" although they have tied the Lakers with the most championships in pro sports since Duncan entered the league. Total idiot is too kind of a words for your expression of complete and absloute ignorance.

As for the Spurs "inability to repeat",Duncan's absence with his knee injury AND Elliot's kidney transplant stacked the odds in 2000. In 2004 the Lakers were a championship team reloaded with two additional HOF players. And still, it took the .4 to get them past the Spurs.

If anything, anyone who knows anything about the history of the NBA would consider the Spurs ability to rebuild three times on the fly while remaining in the championship mix every year as proof of their greatness.

Sad that a claimed Spurs fan does not recognize. It is a laugh to see you attempt to use your pessimisitic glass half fill BS to explain your view. When scoreboard demonstrates you are just stupid.

Recognize!

[Amuseddaysleeper]

[QUOTE=Amuseddaysleeper]but there have been too many times where the spurs have choked. having said that are they a good team? of course, and if they repeat this year i think it would def. help solidify them as real champions since the one major knock people have on them is their inability to repeat./QUOTE]

Hey dickweed, THINK real hard on the fact that the Spurs have won more games than any team in sports AND have are tied with the Lakers with the most Championships since Duncan entered the league. This should tell all but the clueless that the Spurs must have choaked less than any team in pro sports during that time. Think real hard daysleeper. Would you agree with that? Or you that clueless?

On the second highlighted word above, you assert the Spurs are not "Real Champions" although they have tied the Lakers with the most championships in pro sports since Duncan entered the league. Total idiot is too kind of a words for your expression of complete and absloute ignorance.

As for the Spurs "inability to repeat",Duncan's absence with his knee injury AND Elliot's kidney transplant stacked the odds in 2000. In 2004 the Lakers were a championship team reloaded with two additional HOF players. And still, it took the .4 to get them past the Spurs.

If anything, anyone who knows anything about the history of the NBA would consider the Spurs ability to rebuild three times on the fly while remaining in the championship mix every year as proof of their greatness.

Sad that a claimed Spurs fan does not recognize. It is a laugh to see you attempt to use your pessimisitic glass half fill BS to explain your view. When scoreboard demonstrates you are just stupid.

Recognize!

5toolman please shut the fuck up with your excuses of why the spurs couldnt repeat. 2000, yes TD was injured, but 2004 was no excuse, you dont blow a fucking 2-0 lead when you're the defending champs you just dont. just shut the fuck up

[5ToolMan]

5toolman please shut the fuck up with your excuses of why the spurs couldnt repeat. 2000, yes TD was injured, but 2004 was no excuse, you dont blow a fucking 2-0 lead when you're the defending champs you just dont. just shut the fuck up

Scoreboard!

Rather than trying to continue to argue your foolish statement about the Spurs as soft, or not valid champions, you lose your cool and attack me as you spin in the wind.

Nice attempt to tap dance. But you hardly fool anyone who has followed the thread.

You are dismissed ... again.

[mavsfan1000]

It looks like we are catching you. Both mavs and spurs are right there now. :lol

[Rummpd]

After Jan 12th if we would have been told that on March 18 we would sit exactly one game back and two with the tie breaker after the Pistons looked invinceable and led by five games = we would have been thrilled.

Hint we are. Reality has hit the Pistons. They are a very good team, not a great team, and the Spurs if healthy will take them again.