How would the Spurs do against this USA Team?

[TradeManu4Kobe]

if this has already been discussed link me please

[saporvida]

i dont know and dont really care. atleast the spurs have something to show instead of a bronze. hopefully team usa can stay consistent and not bow down to lesser talent around the world.

[Indazone]

Dwight Howard, Michael Redd, Jason Kidd, Lebron and Kobe? Spurs would get killed!

[Mister Sinister]

Dwight Howard, Michael Redd, Jason Kidd, Lebron and Kobe? Spurs would get killed!
They wouldn't if they had Scola.

[WalterBenitez]

we could be lost

[Otaku]

Spurs would trash them with team play.

[JamStone]

Spurs would lose. But, it would be closer than any other team in the NBA.

[Dex]

I think it would be a hard-fought affair.

USA would obviously have an advantage in talent, but you can only put 5 guys on the floor at a time. And they wouldn't be able to keep up this showtime pace against a team trained to defend NBA players.

Spurs would have the advantage in cohesiveness and, more than likely, team defense. And having three of the best players from their respective countries doesn't hurt either.

I think the Spurs would have a chance to win a game.

USA would win a seven game series. But it would be fun to watch.

[jman3000]

spurs would sweep

[jman3000]

too many chiefs... not enough indians.

[JamStone]

I don't know about that. I like Jason Kidd, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Amare Stoudemire, and Dwight Howard with Carmelo Anthony as the 6th man off the bench over the Spurs team.

[Switchman]

If the Spurs would play at their FULL potential....

I mean FUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLL potential. Lock down defense, set the pace, ALL of our 3 pt shooters just going off and hitting everything..

It would be a close loss.

[Cry Havoc]

I think the idea of team play is being a little underestimated here.

But even saying that, the Spurs wouldn't be able to guard everyone. USA is running basically a 3-3-3-4-4 set right now, and every player has speed and hops. They're insane. And they're going to annihilate everyone on their way to a title.

However, I think the Spurs would absolutely decimate a lot of the teams that the US is playing these days. I mean.... the Spurs knocked a team off featuring Barbosa as the 4 or 5th best player in six games. What would they do to a team which had him as the #1 guy?

[ShoogarBear]

If USA is playing unselfishly, the Spurs would get their clocks cleaned.

[ThePrivateSpur]

at first i thought this was a dumb thread to start, but it did may me think seriously about it.

i think if they are playing by fiba rules, then team usa would blow us out. but if it was a nba playoff series, i could see us winning at least 2 games.

[bdictjames]

Spurs would win it, book it.

[timvp]

That's a pretty good question, actually.

I'd probably go with the Spurs. If you think about it, this Team USA could conceivably lose to the Argentina NT ... and the Spurs are better than the Argentina NT.

The great thing about basketball is chemistry and experience can usually beat a collection of talent. However, if as talented as this USA roster is, it might trump that line of thought.

If the two teams played a seven game series, I'd think the series was go six or seven with either team having a decent shot.

[Kori Ellis]

Team USA would crush the Spurs. :)

[whottt]

Depends on how much practice Team USA got together....


Keep in mind, having Jason Kidd with a bunch of all stars is a whole hell of a lot different than having AI and Marbury with a bunch of all stars.

[whottt]

I'd go so far to say that if the 04 Team USA had Michael Redd....they'd have probably won the gold.


That team had no outside shooting and no pass first point guards.

[spursjustice]

Are the Spurs better than Argentina, Spain and Greece? These teams are not as talented as the Spurs but are probably on par in terms of team chemistry. I'd say the Spurs are better than these teams and will probably beat Team USA once or twice out of a 6 games.

[remingtonbo2001]

If we could put David next to Timmy again, then I would say the Spurs, hands down. I don't know if Elson, or Fabs can contain Dwight Howard. Really, that's the only mismatch I see. It's only 40 minutes, which is pretty good for us. We don't start blowin' leads until about 6-7 minute mark in the 4th period, which would be about 41-42 minutes. You could essentially have a 7 man rotation. It would be interesting. DAVID STERN, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. I would Pay-Per-View to see this.

[timvp]

Depends on how much practice Team USA got together....Exactly. If you take 12 players and have them practice together for two weeks, I don't think that they could beat a team like the Spurs that has played together for years.

Now if Team USA played together for a year, they'd beat the Spurs. If they played together for as long as the Spurs have played together, they'd crush the Spurs.

But if right now this Team USA walked off the court and played the Spurs with the Spurs playing their best, it'd be a very interesting seven-game series.


Keep in mind, having Jason Kidd with a bunch of all stars is a whole hell of a lot different than having AI and Marbury with a bunch of all stars.True.

Jason Kidd is the difference between this team and other losing versions of Team USA. Kidd can keep everyone involved and is a big enough defender that the FIBA rules of more physical play allowed on guards doesn't bother him.

Although the media likes to talk up Kobe, Kidd is the real engine that makes that team work. Take out Kidd and you'd have a lot of the same problems. Kidd, next to Magic, might be the most perfect player ever to run a team of stars.

[duncan228]

Jason Kidd is the difference between this team and other losing versions of Team USA. Kidd can keep everyone involved and is a big enough defender that the FIBA rules of more physical play allowed on guards doesn't bother him.

Although the media likes to talk up Kobe, Kidd is the real engine that makes that team work. Take out Kidd and you'd have a lot of the same problems. Kidd, next to Magic, might be the most perfect player ever to run a team of stars.

I agree completely.
Kidd is the difference maker.

[Indazone]

If the Spurs would play at their FULL potential....

I mean FUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLL potential. Lock down defense, set the pace, ALL of our 3 pt shooters just going off and hitting everything..

It would be a close loss.

LMAO it would be a blowout cause Michael Redd would shoot over the Spurs and kill them with 3 ptrs. If not Redd than Kobe is a given on any night to go off for over 50 pts. Add Lebron with another potential scorer to go off and you're already toast from three different positions. Howard nullfies Duncan on the inside. Stoudamire adds more depth and then you have Billups coming off the bench? hah..Spurs or any other NBA team would be toast.

[ChumpDumper]

The Rockets with Scola would beat Team USA easily.

[Indazone]

hehe...Rockets would get blown out same as the Spurs would get blown out by team USA.

[ShoogarBear]

Team USA would crush the Spurs. :)Once again, we've established who runs the household.

[ShoogarBear]

Jason Kidd is the difference between this team and other losing versions of Team USA. Kidd can keep everyone involved and is a big enough defender that the FIBA rules of more physical play allowed on guards doesn't bother him.

Although the media likes to talk up Kobe, Kidd is the real engine that makes that team work. Take out Kidd and you'd have a lot of the same problems. Kidd, next to Magic, might be the most perfect player ever to run a team of stars.In terms of running a team it's basically Cousy/Magic/Stockton/Kidd, and then everyone else.

And yet if you ask a lot of Spur Fans, Tony Parker is better than him because he scores more.

[manubili]

Sports-fiction, i like it.

The US team seem to have some good team work for moments. That's scary! Besides, they have no subs, they are all starters. In rotation times, Spurs would be crashed. We are talking about a team where the subs are Amare, Billups, Prince, Carmelo... that's too much for our B Unit. I say USA team in 5.

It's different when it's about the olympics. There are other factors involved: national pride, different rules, no series, etc. Argentina or Spain might beat the US team, but it doesn't mean they are better than the Spurs.

[Trainwreck2100]

The Rockets with Scola would beat Team USA easily.

I don't think that wwas ever in question. The Rockets with Scola would beat a team with Jesus on it.

[timvp]

In terms of running a team it's basically Cousy/Magic/Stockton/Kidd, and then everyone else.Not sure if Stockton fits the mold, really. He's more of a halfcourt specialist. Sure, he'd be a whole hell of a lot better than other points the US has tried to use, but he's not a fast break specialist like the other three on your list.

That's not taking anything away from Stockton. In a half court setting, Stockton might have been the best there ever was a being a playmaker.


And yet if you ask a lot of Spur Fans, Tony Parker is better than him because he scores more.All thing being equal, Kidd is still the better player. This new re-energized version of Kidd is awesome.

That said, I don't think he'd be as impressive on the Spurs. A team built on defense, half court offense and Tim Duncan doesn't really play to Kidd's skills at all. Kidd would turn into a jump shooter on the Spurs and that's by far the weakest part of his game.

Parker can score in the half court or can complete one-man fast breaks. And while Parker has like 5% of the court vision of Kidd, he's better than Kidd as far as penetrating and kicking to shooters. That combination of skills works perfectly for the rest of the personnel on this team.

[timvp]

P.S.

Am I the only one that thinks Kidd looks a lot healthier and in better shape since he split with his wife? It'd be a little too much of a coincidence that Kidd turns back into Vintage Kidd when he got out of that drama for anything else to be the cause.

[AnotherArgie]

Jason Kidd is the difference between this team and other losing versions of Team USA. Kidd can keep everyone involved and is a big enough defender that the FIBA rules of more physical play allowed on guards doesn't bother him.

Although the media likes to talk up Kobe, Kidd is the real engine that makes that team work. Take out Kidd and you'd have a lot of the same problems. Kidd, next to Magic, might be the most perfect player ever to run a team of stars.

I agree completely. Even more, Kidd already have the 2000 Olympics gold medal, and actually he never lost against a FIBA team in his entire life. And 2000 wasn't an easy ride, the game against Lithuania was tighter than a doll's ass.

[conqueso]

I mean, Kidd's great or whatever, but that's beside the point.

The USA team starts Kobe and Lebron. Now, Bowen could do a great job on one of those guys. But he can't guard both of them at the same time. And who's left to guard Lebron (since you'd definitely want Bowen on Kobe because he's the only defender in the whole league who stands a chance against him)? Manu? FINLEY?

Seriously guys, the Spurs are the shit, no doubt, but this USA team is full of nasty all-stars. They would sweep the shit out of us. I don't care what Duncan does down low or how much Parker tears apart their weak ass defense. That team is like Phoenix on amphetamines.

[ShoogarBear]

Not sure if Stockton fits the mold, really. He's more of a halfcourt specialist. Sure, he'd be a whole hell of a lot better than other points the US has tried to use, but he's not a fast break specialist like the other three on your list.

That's not taking anything away from Stockton. In a half court setting, Stockton might have been the best there ever was a being a playmaker. I think Stockton was as capable of running an uptempo team as much as any of those guys, but he was saddled with a coach (and personnel) who weren't conducive for it.



That said, I don't think he'd be as impressive on the Spurs. A team built on defense, half court offense and Tim Duncan doesn't really play to Kidd's skills at all. Kidd would turn into a jump shooter on the Spurs and that's by far the weakest part of his game.
First of all, if Kidd was on the Spurs, I think Pop would be smart enought to know what he had. Kidd would be given more freedom to run the team than any player in Pop's history, AJ included. C'mon, Kidd, Parker, and Manu in the lineup and you're not going to run?

Second, I think Kidd's value in a half court game is underrated. Yes, he's not a great shooter, but he still understand spacing and angles and knows how to get to ball to the right people at the right time. He'd force the coaches to get more creative in the half-court sets.

Anyhow, I'm biased when it comes to JKidd. I saw the game where he almost single handedly eliminated the 2-time defending champion Duke in the NCAA and then got to chat with him a little the day after (we were staying in the same hotel). And I've always been fascinated by a 6'4" guy who can dominate the game at both ends without taking a shot.

[atxrocker]

was this thread really necessary? are spurs fans really this full of themselves? i mean seriously, team usa would fuck your world up.

[timvp]

I think Stockton was as capable of running an uptempo team as much as any of those guys, but he was saddled with a coach (and personnel) who weren't conducive for it.Perhaps he could have thrived in an uptempo system but I guess we'll never know.


First of all, if Kidd was on the Spurs, I think Pop would be smart enought to know what he had. Kidd would be given more freedom to run the team than any player in Pop's history, AJ included. C'mon, Kidd, Parker, and Manu in the lineup and you're not going to run?In my hypothetical world, I was replacing Parker with Kidd. Ironically enough, Parker might excel with Kidd the most compared to Duncan or Manu.

Duncan isn't really a running bigman ... at least anymore. He'd get some nice passes from Kidd but Kidd would be better suited next to an athletic running big like Amare or DHoward. Of course Duncan and Kidd together would work but Duncan needs the ball in his hands a good amount to be successful ... and that'd be less time that Kidd has the ball.


Second, I think Kidd's value in a half court game is underrated. Yes, he's not a great shooter, but he still understand spacing and angles and knows how to get to ball to the right people at the right time. He'd force the coaches to get more creative in the half-court sets.
If the Spurs offense remained Tim Duncan oriented where he's the focus on the low block, teams would still force Kidd to hit jumpers consistently ... something he's never really done.

However, if Kidd came aboard and the Spurs replaced Bowen with a high flier and Ginobili with a big scoring, running wing, then perhaps the Spurs offense wouldn't be so Duncan oriented.

*has flashbacks of the threads back in 2002*


Anyhow, I'm biased when it comes to JKidd. I saw the game where he almost single handedly eliminated the 2-time defending champion Duke in the NCAA and then got to chat with him a little the day after (we were staying in the same hotel). And I've always been fascinated by a 6'4" guy who can dominate the game at both ends without taking a shot.Yeah Kidd is one of the most uniquely talented players ever. Great court vision, great anticipation, good defender and can rebound like a bigman. Not much he doesn't do ... other than shoot.

[whottt]

And yet if you ask a lot of Spur Fans, Tony Parker is better than him because he scores more.



It's more like Tony Parker was a better fit for this team and NBA style of play and season.

Kidd is tailor made for international play, tournaments and a bunch of athletic NBA bigs and a couple of A level shooters.


It's like Kidd is the equivalent of a months practice time together.


He's so smart about the game you can just give him the ball and let him run things, and with the talent he has around him...he'll dominate, he'll make them better...and the other teams won't know what hit them.


That recipe doesn't work quite as well in the NBA, where Kidd's shortcomings can be exploited, where he can be gameplanned, prepared for, and where's he's not going to have the talent edge in supporting cast that he will for team USA.


I mean there are teams that always scared the hell out of me picturing them if Kidd went to them...the Spurs just weren't one of them. Not enough talent...besides we don't need his ball distribution.


If we didn't have Tim Duncan Kidd would have been the better fit...

[mavs>spurs2]

Oh God how I wish the Mavs had kept Kidd... :depressed

[atxrocker]

Oh God how I wish the Mavs had kept Nash... :depressed


fixed

[whottt]

And I've always been fascinated by a 6'4" guy who can dominate the game at both ends without taking a shot.



Hopefully you were impressed with Kidd having to beg for mercy at the task of guarding a 20 year old Tony Parker...


He just didn't fit the team that well, especially for the $$$ it was going to take to get him...who is the going to pass the ball too? Tim Duncan?


If I am building an international Team Kidd is probably the first player I take...even to this day I might take him first. And Ray Allen would probably be the second guy I take, even to this day. Bust that freaking zone down.


But I wouldn't trade Tony Parker for either of those guys...or Nash if I am building an NBA Team....I wouldn't traded him for them 4 years ago(especially since that pre-dated Nash's emergence as an MVP).



Hmmm...I think you are just playing Devil's advocate.



I didn't exactly see you begging me to take Parker when I was offering you Kidd in the D-league last year either.


In fact I seem to recall the conversation being something along the lines of...don't even think about asking for Parker under any trade scenarios.



And Kidd's fantasy value is unquestionably greater than Parker's.

[Fast Dunk]

Dwight Howard, Michael Redd, Jason Kidd, Lebron and Kobe? Spurs would get killed!

Absolutely !!!!!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Great thread by all! Many good points made. I'd pay to see it.


Howard nullfies Duncan on the inside.

However, that is the weakest thing that's been said. I love Howard, he's a beast, and he's slowly improving, but he still can't even carry Tim's jock. Seriously. :rolleyes

[Dalhoop]

The Spurs, like any NBA team, would stay close until the starters started cycling to the bench, when Duncan, Parker, or Manu sits, its lights out for the Spurs.

If the Spurs could manage to keep it close, I would like their chances in the closing minutes as Duncan is just as good as any player in clutch time ... Its in the staying close that would be the problem.

Bilups, Redd, Prince, Mello and Amare is the second team, compare that to Vaughn, Finely, Barry, Oberto, Horry.

[mavs>spurs2]

fixed
No way i'd take Kidd over Nash any day as long as my favorite team isn't the Phoenix Suns.

[urunobili]

Tim Duncan would be too much for this team USA... Spurs in a 7 game series would lose 1 or maybe 2...

[manubili]

If it is just one game, I think the Spurs have a chance playing Duncan and Parker almost every minute. And we're gonna need Bowen, Horry and Manu going maniac with the 3 pointers. Argentina-B lose by just 15 points, and they are way more worse than the Spurs. Ok, USA were having fun at the end of that game, but I think that lack of preasure improved their game. I have never seen Lebron hitting so many jumers and 3pts.

If it is a best of seven series, there's no chance for the spurs. USA Team is too damn unbelievable athletic and deep. Even "deepness" doesn´t apply as a methaphore, they're something else.

[mavs>spurs2]

Tim Duncan would be too much for this team USA... Spurs in a 7 game series would lose 1 or maybe 2...

:lmao

[Ellinaras]

Spurs would beat this team like a drum.

[ShoogarBear]

If the Spurs offense remained Tim Duncan oriented where he's the focus on the low block, teams would still force Kidd to hit jumpers consistently ... something he's never really done.

However, if Kidd came aboard and the Spurs replaced Bowen with a high flier and Ginobili with a big scoring, running wing, then perhaps the Spurs offense wouldn't be so Duncan oriented.


He's so smart about the game you can just give him the ball and let him run things, and with the talent he has around him...he'll dominate, he'll make them better...and the other teams won't know what hit them.

I mean there are teams that always scared the hell out of me picturing them if Kidd went to them...the Spurs just weren't one of them. Not enough talent...besides we don't need his ball distribution.
It would be nice to see the alternate universe where Kidd signed with the Spurs and it didn't break the team up. I still think it's underrated what Kidd could do in a halfcourt game with Manu and Duncan.

I said at the time that Kidd and Manu were almost identifical styles except that Kidd had defense and better passing and Manu had shooting. The two of them on the same side of the ball would have been awesome. The combination would have been not just additive, but exponential. Add Duncan to the mix and the amount of ball movement would have been ridiculous.

Kidd may not have been able to get through the lane quite as frequently as Parker, but on the other hand there wouldn't be possessions where he's dribbling out the clock.

And as far as when the Spurs run 4-down, you think JKidd doesn't know how to cut to the basket?

Yes, they would have to pick up a shooter, but it wouldn't have to be a first-line star. Hell, he'd even hit Barry with passes that he would make him shoot.

[ShoogarBear]

Hopefully you were impressed with Kidd having to beg for mercy at the task of guarding a 20 year old Tony Parker...Of course, by the end of the series he didn't have do to much of that.



I didn't exactly see you begging me to take Parker when I was offering you Kidd in the D-league last year either.

In fact I seem to recall the conversation being something along the lines of...don't even think about asking for Parker under any trade scenarios.

And Kidd's fantasy value is unquestionably greater than Parker's.In a one-year league, yes. In a dynasty league, with his age and recent injuries, no.

[Nashfan]

Spurs would trash them with team play.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Nashfan]

spurs would sweep


Even funnier statement :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Nashfan]

That's a pretty good question, actually.

I'd probably go with the Spurs. If you think about it, this Team USA could conceivably lose to the Argentina NT ... and the Spurs are better than the Argentina NT.

The great thing about basketball is chemistry and experience can usually beat a collection of talent. However, if as talented as this USA roster is, it might trump that line of thought.

If the two teams played a seven game series, I'd think the series was go six or seven with either team having a decent shot.


You are delusional :lmao :lmao

[Fast Dunk]

Spurs would beat this team like a drum.

what a dumb ass!! LOL :lol :dizzy