Who in the West can take down the Spurs?

[ttdog]

From the Sporting News Link Here (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=396776)

With all these great teams in the West, how many of them have better than a one-in-three chance of knocking off the defending champions in a seven-game series?

Easy. None of them.

Seriously, what about the Lakers?

Call me when Andrew Bynum returns and is playing like he was before his knee injury. In other words, call me next season. After missing two months, he can't be expected to step in and pick up where he left off. Without Bynum at 100 percent, the Lakers still might be the second best team in the conference, but that doesn't mean they can handle the Spurs' experience, depth and Tim Duncan.

OK, what about the Suns?

Any team that is outscored 27-9 in the fourth quarter at home -- as the Suns were by the Mavericks on Sunday -- should not be booking rooms in Boston or Detroit for the first weekend in June. The Suns have played well enough lately to give their fans hope that the Shaquille O'Neal trade will work. The Suns also have had enough stretches like Sunday's -- when they were shut out for the better part of the last quarter -- to keep us doubters doubting.

The Jazz?

No one is better at home, but these guys really struggle on the road. I know the Jazz's league-best 35-4 record at EnergySolutions Arena includes Friday night's convincing 90-64 victory over the Spurs. But the Jazz haven't won in San Antonio since Carlos Boozer was a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, and Utah is the only top-six team in the West with a losing record on the road. Gaining home-court advantage on the Spurs is a long shot because the Jazz trail by two games with five to play -- with the season finale in San Antonio. No home court, no chance.

The Mavs?

Well, I sure like their chances a lot more after their fourth-quarter performance at Phoenix on Sunday. Headed for the No. 7 seed and a possible first-round date with the Spurs, the Mavs have as good a chance as anyone to unseat the champs. One reason: Dirk Nowitzki's high ankle sprain could prove beneficial in the long run. When Nowitzki was out, Josh Howard raised his game, Jason Terry woke up, and the Mavs seemed to get more comfortable with Jason Kidd. Then Nowitzki made a quicker-than-expected return and, based on the way he's played in his past two games, is closer to 100 percent than anyone figured he could be two weeks after the injury. So maybe the bad karma that dogged the Mavs in their past two playoff series has dissipated. Then again, maybe it hasn't. I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon after one impressive fourth quarter.

The Hornets?

I could use the rationale that teams don't go from not making the playoffs one year to reaching the Finals the next. If I did that, though, I would not be able to pick the Celtics to win the championship, and I'm liking the Celtics' chances more and more. So why not the Hornets? Their bench is thinner than the other contenders, and their lack of playoff experience will, in fact, hurt them.

The Rockets?

If you can remember the last time a team reached the Finals with its best player injured for the entire playoffs, please let me know.

The Nuggets? The Warriors?

A scout told me recently that a lack of leadership could cost the Nuggets in close games. He must have been talking about games like Sunday night's, when the Nuggets lost in double overtime at lowly Seattle. Sonics rookies Kevin Durant and Jeff Green delivered the big shots, not Allen Iverson or Carmelo Anthony.

The Warriors simply aren't big enough to survive three rounds of playoffs in the West, even if they don't have to face the Spurs.

Of course, the Nuggets and Warriors have to worry about reaching the playoffs before they can think about the Spurs

Stan McNeal is a writer for Sporting News. E-mail him at [email protected]

[tlongII]

The Hornets will win the West.

[Kamnik]

The Hornets will win the West.

Maybe in a year or two.... but by then your blazers will be formidable too.

[balli]

The Jazz?

No one is better at home, but these guys really struggle on the road. I know the Jazz's league-best 35-4 record at EnergySolutions Arena includes Friday night's convincing 90-64 victory over the Spurs. But the Jazz haven't won in San Antonio since Carlos Boozer was a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, and Utah is the only top-six team in the West with a losing record on the road. Gaining home-court advantage on the Spurs is a long shot because the Jazz trail by two games with five to play -- with the season finale in San Antonio. No home court, no chance.

For the record, I don't believe Utah to be better than San Antonio. You're the favorites until somebody knocks you off. But...

Utah's road situation is convoluted. In fact we have some great wins on the road. We won at Denver when it still mattered. We went to Phoenix and wiped the floor with them. In Boston, we handed the celts thier worst loss of the season. I'm pretty sure we beat NO in NO.

The fact is most of our road losses came against terrible teams- Atlanta, Indiana, New Jersey, Chicago, Charlotte, New York and Miami and lost on the road twice to Minnesota, twice to Sacramento and once to the L.A. Clippers.

To me, those losses don't speak whatsoever to our ability to beat good teams on the road. If anything it says that we had one terrible Dec. road trip and that we tend to play to the level of competiton around us. It's not a good thing, but to label the Jazz as a bad road team (as everyone has done) is to not fully understand the situation. Bad road teams don't whup the shit out of all the good teams they face on the road.

Hence, we don't have a problem with the road in general, we have a problem getting up for road games against shit teams. In the playoffs, there are no shit teams, hence the road shouldn't be nearly as much of a problem as it was back in that horrible Dec. we had.

[D-rob fan]

The Rockets?

If you can remember the last time a team reached the Finals with its best player injured for the entire playoffs, please let me know.



Wasn't Patrick Ewing injured the entire playoffs in 98-99 when they reached the finals? Can't remember when he got injured.

[balli]

Wasn't Patrick Ewing injured the entire playoffs in 98-99 when they reached the finals? Can't remember when he got injured.

I don't know exactly what round it happened in (or before the playoffs) but I do know it did happen, because it spawned The Ewing Theory.

[stretch]

The Mavs still have the best shot, without question. Next closest is the Lakers. After that, I don't see anyone in the west beating the Spurs. Maybe the Warriors if they somehow get hot and start consistently hitting half-court turnaround shots, and 720 degree spinning no-look behind the back layups, like they did last year against the Mavericks.

[MrChug]

Maybe in a year or two.... but by then your blazers will be formidable too.

Then so will the Lakers with a healthy, wiser Bynum too. To speak on the Lakers side however, it's true that there is no system to come into easier to learn for a post player than the Triangle. I think he might come back and assimilate into the Post-Pau Era very well.

[hater]

mavs have no way to stop Tim Duncan. Kidd gets owned by parker.

Mavs traded away Diop and Harris, those were the Spurs killers. Mavs have no chance in hell

[nkdlunch]

I don't see Mavs winning even 1 game in a series vs. Spurs. The mismatch is on the Spurs side now.

But I do see Hornets, Utah and even Lakers/Phoenix giving the Spurs hell.

[Jack Sommersset]

I think any team but Nuggets and Warriors can beat the Spurs in the west. Spurs should be able to beat Houston but we all saw the streak and if they get hot.......More likely to beat Spurs are the rest. That article was weak!

[DaDakota]

The Spurs are the favorites IMHO, but they are not the CLEAR favorites, they could be beaten by any team in the playoffs in the WC.......

The teams are that close.

DD

[spursfan09]

The Spurs have to avoid these scoring droughts. They can only rely on thier defense so much. However Manu and Tony and Tim have shown so much that I beleive it will be hard to beat the Spurs if they are healthy. I think if Horry and Barry are able to make ti back somehow then I like the chances even more!

[Medvedenko]

It's all going to come down to health as usual. The lakers with Pau are 18-3 and have the highest offensive effeciency with Pau in the lineup. Defensively is where they need to make their stand and Bynum is huge in this regard.

The Spurs are the team to beat, but they are mortal this year.
Spurs
NO
Lakers
Phoenix
Dallas
Utah
in that order.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I'm far far more concerned with SA's offense, than I am with their defense.

Granted, defense wins championships, this team's offensive droughts could easily cost them a game or two in a playoff series.

And with how packed the West is this season, that's all it could take to knock SA out.

[manufor3]

The Hornets will win the West.
given up now that your blazers are gone?

[DazedAndConfused]

This entire article reads like it was written by a drunk Spurs fan.

[DazedAndConfused]

I'm far far more concerned with SA's offense, than I am with their defense.

Granted, defense wins championships, this team's offensive droughts could easily cost them a game or two in a playoff series.

And with how packed the West is this season, that's all it could take to knock SA out.

Gets it. This is what I've been saying all along, but Spurs homers seem to think that as long as their D holds up they can win every game.

[temujin]

Spurs have lost ONE playoffs series in the last 5 years.
The second was won by the clock and nothing else.

Hence, just consider the thing from the OPPOSITE perspective.

How are you going to WIN four games against this machine?
For some of the other teams -GSW, Denver, Houston, Utah- this is almost impossible.
The others do have a chance, but they have to play like they never did before at the playoff level.
NO lacks experience.
Suns have D'antoni and Stoudamire in the clutch.
Dallas has Cuban.
By and large, LA and their X factor do have the best shot in the West.

But the only serious, real contender is in the east, and Billups as a point guard.

[DazedAndConfused]

The Spurs lost in 2002 and then again in 2004 to the Lakers.

In 2002 they lost 4-1. In 2004 they lost 4-2. Both series were lost DECISIVELY.

STFU about this 0.4 bullshit, your team lost fair and square to a better Laker squad. If you want to talk about lucky shots why are we not talking about Tim Duncan's lucky ass fadeaway shot that he hit right before Derek hit his?

[Manu's Bald Spot]

I don't know if that whole "NO lacks experience" thing is gonna matter to be honest. Yeah, we have so much more experience than they do, but they seem to match with us very very well, so I'm worried about NO. LA and PHX as well, dallas not so much. Let's just say I'd be much happier to see Dallas in the playoffs now vs 06 or 07

[Allanon]

If the Jazz and Spurs matchup first round with Jazz having home court, I think the Jazz take it.

Suns also matchup well with the Spurs.

Mavs vs Spurs should be in Spurs favor but Mavs have historically given the Spurs a hard time.

Spurs defense is as good as ever but their vulnerabilities this year are:
1) Very thin this year. 3 superstar players and the rest are streaky
2) Serious Lack of athleticism without the 3 point shooting to compensate (Horry, Barry)
3) Problems when guarding a big Small Forward and good guard at the same time (Peja and CP3, Lamar & Kobe, Boris Diaw & Steve Nash, Kirelenko & D-Will).

[td4mvp21]

The Spurs lost in 2002 and then again in 2004 to the Lakers.

In 2002 they lost 4-1. In 2004 they lost 4-2. Both series were lost DECISIVELY.

STFU about this 0.4 bullshit, your team lost fair and square to a better Laker squad. If you want to talk about lucky shots why are we not talking about Tim Duncan's lucky ass fadeaway shot that he hit right before Derek hit his?

Because it didn't win the game. If it did, Lakers fans would be in our place, no doubt about that. I think it's a toss-up whether the Spurs would have won that series or not, but who cares, that was 4 years ago...


I think Medvendenko said it best. We are the team to beat but we are by far mortal this year. If the Spurs are going to lose this year, it's going to be to a team that is absolutely better in almost every way.

[DazedAndConfused]

Derek's shot won the game, but it DIDN'T win the series like you morons claim. There were still games left to be played and the Spurs lost ALL OF THEM after that.

You guys are bitching and moaning like the Suns did last year saying that if Amare wasn't suspended they would have won. The Spurs lost fair and square to a better team, fucking man up and admit it.

[td4mvp21]

Derek's shot won the game, but it DIDN'T win the series like you morons claim. There were still games left to be played and the Spurs lost ALL OF THEM after that.

You guys are bitching and moaning like the Suns did last year saying that if Amare wasn't suspended they would have won. The Spurs lost fair and square to a better team, fucking man up and admit it.

I wasn't bitching. I said if the Spurs won Game 5 it was still a toss-up of whether they would have won that series. If the Spurs were the better team they would have won Game 6 and then a Game 7, but they didn't. Fisher's shot didn't win the series but it gave the Lakers a good advantage. So what? Game 5 in the 2003 series gave us a good advantage too. The better team won both of those series.

[BIG z]

There are so many good teams in the west that any team can win it all.....

[HotRodStuckey003]

Hornets and Lakers in the WCF. Pistons over the Lakers in the Finals. '04 all over again.

[MrChug]

The Spurs are a hard team to beat in a 7 game series, but they are mortal this year.
Spurs
Lakers
NO
Phoenix
Dallas
Utah
in that order.

Corrected, but nice take. ;)

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I like our chances against the Laker or any other team in the west if we can get Barry and Horry back. Without both of those guys I still think we can win, but our big three would need to be perfect.

I do like our matchup against the Lakers regardless. Bowen does a great job on Kobe and Timmy does a great job on Pau. Their two biggest offense threats are meeting two of the best defenders for their repsective positions in the league. The Lakers can't possibly ask for worse matchups from an offensive standpoint.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Our toughest matchups will come from the east and the Hornets.

The Jazz cannot win away, the Mavs can't guard any of our big three, and the Suns will choke once again.

[Sense]

Derek's shot won the game, but it DIDN'T win the series like you morons claim. There were still games left to be played and the Spurs lost ALL OF THEM after that.

You guys are bitching and moaning like the Suns did last year saying that if Amare wasn't suspended they would have won. The Spurs lost fair and square to a better team, fucking man up and admit it.

Boy are you wrong...

shit I admit we lost to a better team in the Mavericks even with Manu fouling Dirk with the and one... but everyone that was watching the series knew who the better team was that year and it was clearly the Spurs....

Even the Lakers knew it that year... but that shot Fisher hit just killed the Spurs confidence.. it reminded them of who the Lakers were and it just killed their focus..

They were weak minded after that and got finished... but I have no doubt in my mind that we would've atleast finished off the Pistons in the finals if it wasn't for that shot.

[BiZNicK]

I have a hard time seeing anyone taking out the Spurs in a 7 game series.

If i HAD to pick someone I'd say Lakers have the best chance...but even with that matchup I'll take the spurs to win 4-2 in that one.

[DazedAndConfused]

Boy are you wrong...

shit I admit we lost to a better team in the Mavericks even with Manu fouling Dirk with the and one... but everyone that was watching the series knew who the better team was that year and it was clearly the Spurs....

Even the Lakers knew it that year... but that shot Fisher hit just killed the Spurs confidence.. it reminded them of who the Lakers were and it just killed their focus..

They were weak minded after that and got finished... but I have no doubt in my mind that we would've atleast finished off the Pistons in the finals if it wasn't for that shot.

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

[Mavsforlife]

Lakers probably have the best shot but Mavs have the most animosity and that can go along way in a series, even if the matchups are bad.

I still wouldn't be surprised if Mavs or Lakers beat Spurs but it would be tough, not impossible.

[DazedAndConfused]

I would say the Suns have a very good chance at knocking out the Spurs. They definitely have a chip on their shoulder from last year and now that they have Shaq it really changes the makeup of that series. Tomorrow should be a good game, if the Suns can win out I wouldn't take that team lightly if I were a Spurs fan.

[Purple & Gold]

Lakeshow

[Purple & Gold]

Boy are you wrong...

shit I admit we lost to a better team in the Mavericks even with Manu fouling Dirk with the and one... but everyone that was watching the series knew who the better team was that year and it was clearly the Spurs....

Even the Lakers knew it that year... but that shot Fisher hit just killed the Spurs confidence.. it reminded them of who the Lakers were and it just killed their focus..

They were weak minded after that and got finished... but I have no doubt in my mind that we would've atleast finished off the Pistons in the finals if it wasn't for that shot.

No the reason you guys lost is because Phil took Tony out of the series. The Lakers started mugging him and he disappeared. For everytime I hear spurs fans cry about .4, they never bring up that Duncan also hit an impossible shot over Shaq.

[Purple & Gold]

Then so will the Lakers with a healthy, wiser Bynum too. To speak on the Lakers side however, it's true that there is no system to come into easier to learn for a post player than the Triangle. I think he might come back and assimilate into the Post-Pau Era very well.

I agree. Bynum is also a very smart player and a very good passer. He will fit in seamlessly with the new Lakers. I'll be surprised if it takes more than a few games for him to fit in.

[Princess Pimp]

Anybody can take these mofos!

[spursfan09]

No the reason you guys lost is because Phil took Tony out of the series. The Lakers started mugging him and he disappeared. For everytime I hear spurs fans cry about .4, they never bring up that Duncan also hit an impossible shot over Shaq.

Why does it bother you that spurs fans always bring up .4? Ofcourse we will always remember it as the BS shot. I can say Duncan's shot was BS to. If we had won the game and Laker fans were the one's crying about that shot I wouldn't care. We won the series. The only difference is that Duncan's shot actually counted before time expired. :spin

[Jimcs50]

Utah is only team that can beat Spurs this year. And if they do, then I hope they win it all. Jerry Sloan deserves a title, IMO.

[stretch]

Boy are you wrong...

shit I admit we lost to a better team in the Mavericks even with Manu fouling Dirk with the and one... but everyone that was watching the series knew who the better team was that year and it was clearly the Spurs....

Even the Lakers knew it that year... but that shot Fisher hit just killed the Spurs confidence.. it reminded them of who the Lakers were and it just killed their focus..

They were weak minded after that and got finished... but I have no doubt in my mind that we would've atleast finished off the Pistons in the finals if it wasn't for that shot.
:lmao at your sig about "Jonathan Chow"

fucking classic

[mexicanjunior]

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

The Lakers didn't do it in '04 either, they got exposed by the Pistons for the lucky team they were to even make it that far...

[SAGambler]

Utah is only team that can beat Spurs this year. And if they do, then I hope they win it all. Jerry Sloan deserves a title, IMO.

Don't know if they are the "only" team that can, but they certainly would be the one that would worry me the most.

I think their road record is a little bit misleading, and we know they are beasts at home.

And yeah, if they knock off the Spurs, then I would pull for them to go all the way also.

[DazedAndConfused]

The Lakers didn't do it in '04 either, they got exposed by the Pistons for the lucky team they were to even make it that far...

At least they GOT to the Finals in '04. The 3-peat Lakers were far from lucky, winning 3 in a row means you're fucking good. You should know better, your team hasn't even repeated yet.

[spursfan09]

At least they GOT to the Finals in '04. The 3-peat Lakers were far from lucky, winning 3 in a row means you're fucking good. You should know better, your team hasn't even repeated yet.

good use of the "yet"! You know its coming don't you?

[mexicanjunior]

At least they GOT to the Finals in '04. The 3-peat Lakers were far from lucky, winning 3 in a row means you're fucking good. You should know better, your team hasn't even repeated yet.

The 3-peat Lakers were 2000-2002, what does that have to do with the 2004 version of your team? Going by your logic, the Lakers should have won in 2003 also but they were handled in 6...

[cash459]

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

what happened to the lakers when they "played" the pistons in the finals? :oops

[DazedAndConfused]

You just said the 2004 Lakers were lucky. Lucky would be beating the Spurs in Game 7 off of a 0.4 second shot. That didn't happen, the Lakers trounced the Spurs 4-2. That's not luck, that's called flat out beating your opponent.

[DazedAndConfused]

what happened to the lakers when they "played" the pistons in the finals? :oops

They weren't champions that year. We all concede the Pistons were the better team in that series. Funny how you talk shit about the Lakers that year when they fucking whooped your team 4-2.

[cash459]

cool your jets you ass clown...

i wasnt talking shit, YOU were. I was just giving you a slap of reality of your high horse that the lakers arent all that.

EVERYONE in here that talks about who can win, whos going to win,.....its all TALK. let the games play out and then we can talk smack to each other.

all this wasted time and energy. get involved in actual engaging conversation. not "what if" or What was BS.

[DazedAndConfused]

Agreed, but a lot of Spurs fans here refuse to acknowledge that the Lakers beat them in 2004. Instead it was a lucky 0.4 second shot that won the series for the Lakers. You all sound like Suns fans whining about Amare and Diaw being suspended being the reason they lost last year.

[cash459]

the spurs lost that series. yes. i know that.

yes, Duncans shot before fishers may have been lucky.

But if you compare the 2 shots to each other, there is NO way that you can say that Tim's was as lucky or luckier than fishers.

Fishers shot should have never gotten off. it was time keeper error. but yes, the spurs should have been able to get past it.

it had been talked about & proven year after year that a player could not get a shot off after catching & shooting with less than .5 sec. let alone catch, fake one way, turn and then shoot in .4

[Gino]

To answer the question, I could see the Lakers, Suns, Hornets and Jazz all taking out he Spurs this year. I just don't see the Spurs coming out of the west.

[DazedAndConfused]

the spurs lost that series. yes. i know that.

yes, Duncans shot before fishers may have been lucky.

But if you compare the 2 shots to each other, there is NO way that you can say that Tim's was as lucky or luckier than fishers.

Fishers shot should have never gotten off. it was time keeper error. but yes, the spurs should have been able to get past it.

it had been talked about & proven year after year that a player could not get a shot off after catching & shooting with less than .5 sec. let alone catch, fake one way, turn and then shoot in .4

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now fucking man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

[Mr. Body]

Lakers got destroyed by Detroit in the Finals that year. Absolutely destroyed.

[JK2]

Lakers
Mavs
Suns
Jazz
Hornets
Nuggets
Warriors
Rockets

[mexicanjunior]

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now fucking man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

I'll admit they won the series but I don't believe they were the better team, just the more fortunate. Losing a game on your home court on a last .4 second shot is demoralizing to a team and the Spurs were not able to recover from it. Call it weak minded if you want but I don't think that constitutes your team being better. Besides, the Finals proved out the Lakers were not the best team in the league that year anyway, they were absolutely scorched in the Finals...

[rascal]

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

I agree with you if the spurs were really that good they still would have won. That shot was just 1 game, the spurs lost 3 others in that series and were not that good that year. Its more of an excuse by some spur fans who think the Fisher shot cost them a championship.

[spursfan09]

Agreed, but a lot of Spurs fans here refuse to acknowledge that the Lakers beat them in 2004. Instead it was a lucky 0.4 second shot that won the series for the Lakers. You all sound like Suns fans whining about Amare and Diaw being suspended being the reason they lost last year.

Well we ignore the fans that talk all that shit about last season, and they are the ones that come here. You come to a Spurs board, why don't you trying your best to ignore it and leave then?

[DazedAndConfused]

^^It's not just some small sect of Spurs fans that believe they got cheated out of the 2004 WCF.

[mavsfan1000]

Lakers and Mavs. That's it.

[spursfan09]

^^It's not just some small sect of Spurs fans that believe they got cheated out of the 2004 WCF.

I think that shot was BS. However Spurs still lost 3 games, so believe me I know they lost for a reason that wasn't the shot alone. Don't put me in that category.

[cash459]

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now fucking man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

i wont admit that ANY team DESREVES to win a series. thats BS. and if "better" means b/c they found a way to win and the spurs clammed up, then it is what it is. and the lakers arent the all amazing, unbeatable team either, the spurs have handled them before and could do it again. the lakers and spurs & mavs/spurs series are usually always epic battles because all those teams play well against each other.

but like i said before, worrying about what could happen is pointless

[Allanon]

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

I don't remember the circumstances that led up to .4 but I do remember th 105-81 win in the first game. That was a shocker and I knew from that game that the series was over and I am sure the Lakers would have won regardless of .4 that year.

This year, the line between teams in the West is so blurred, everybody has issues.
1) Spurs have problems on offense and no bench (no Manu isn't a bencher)
2) Lakers are injured in their key Center position on defense
3) Hornets have no experience and streaky bench
4) Jazz can't win consistently on the road
5) Amare and Nash can't play defense
6) Rockets are injured at the Center position
7) Mavericks can't beat .500+ teams because they're still finding rhythm
8) Too streaky

Kryptonite teams...ones that will play much better versus certain teams:

Spurs are Kryptonite for Hornets/Rockets
Lakers are Kyptonite for #8 seed, Jazz
Jazz are Kryptonite for any team without HCA, and Hornets no matter what seed
Suns are Kryptonite for the Spurs, Hornets
Mavericks are Kryptonite for the Spurs
#8 seed can be lethal for any team that laughs at them

I'd love to see the Jazz take care of the Hornets in the 2nd round. D-Will takes "Allstar CP3 and MVP candidate" VERY personally.

[Girasuck]

I'll say this...

Last year we had NO SHOT at beating the Spurs...NONE!! The series was over before it started. This year we have a shot but I still don't think we can win 4 out of 7 against SA. If we do meet this year I'm pretty confident we can take you guys to 7 games.

[cash459]

I don't remember the circumstances that led up to .4 but I do remember th 105-81 win in the first game. That was a shocker and I knew from that game that the series was over and I am sure the Lakers would have won regardless of .4 that year.

This year, the line between teams in the West is so blurred, everybody has issues.
1) Spurs have problems on offense and no bench (no Manu isn't a bencher)
2) Lakers are injured in their key Center position on defense
3) Hornets have no experience and streaky bench
4) Jazz can't win consistently on the road
5) Amare and Nash can't play defense
6) Rockets are injured at the Center position
7) Mavericks can't beat .500+ teams because they're still finding rhythm
8) Too streaky

Kryptonite teams...ones that will play much better versus certain teams:

Spurs are Kryptonite for Hornets/Rockets
Lakers are Kyptonite for #8 seed, Jazz
Jazz are Kryptonite for any team without HCA, and Hornets no matter what seed
Suns are Kryptonite for the Spurs, Hornets
Mavericks are Kryptonite for the Spurs
#8 seed can be lethal for any team that laughs at them

I'd love to see the Jazz take care of the Hornets in the 2nd round. D-Will takes "Allstar CP3 and MVP candidate" VERY personally.

do you not think that there are any teams in the west that are "kryptonite" for the lakers?

[Allanon]

Not in the West Playoffs. If Blazers and Memphis were in the Playoffs, yes. Lakers match up well with every West Playoff team.

Celtics and Cavs are the Lakers Playoff Kryptonite but both are in the East. Pistons won't bother Lakers much.

[Sense]

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

No they were....

and we all saw how powerful that shot was..
Everyone knew that was it after that shot... everyone did.. but I'm over arguing about it because the Lakers got owned by the Spurs mirror image team in the East.

[bresilhac]

Derek's shot won the game, but it DIDN'T win the series like you morons claim. There were still games left to be played and the Spurs lost ALL OF THEM after that.

You guys are bitching and moaning like the Suns did last year saying that if Amare wasn't suspended they would have won. The Spurs lost fair and square to a better team, fucking man up and admit it.

Drop it man. It's old news already. You Laker fans should now be concerned with how you'll survive these upcoming playoffs. If the Lakers should meet the Spurs this postseason the results of a series played four years ago will have absolutely no bearing on the results of a potential 2008 matchup.

[DazedAndConfused]

You're argument makes absolutely no sense. If the Spurs were as good as you say they were they would not have let one shot affect them like that. If they were meant to be champions they would have bounced back and won the next game.

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS. Once they figured out how to stop TP the series was over.

[cash459]

You're argument makes absolutely no sense. If the Spurs were as good as you say they were they would not have let one shot affect them like that. If they were meant to be champions they would have bounced back and won the next game.

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS. Once they figured out how to stop TP the series was over.

if the lakers were as good as you say they were that year, what happened in the finals?

............??................... now STFU. Neither team won it that year, so it doesnt friggin matter.

Whats the point of getting to the finals if you blow the opportunity? ask mavs fans.

[DazedAndConfused]

I never said the Lakers deserved to or should have beaten the Pistons. The Pistons were a better team than the Lakers. I admit that.

You and many other Spurs' fans won't admit that the Lakers were a better team than the Spurs that year. Instead it was a lucky ass shot by Derek Fisher that lost them the series.

[cash459]

I never said the Lakers deserved to or should have beaten the Pistons. The Pistons were a better team than the Lakers. I admit that.

You and many other Spurs' fans won't admit that the Lakers were a better team than the Spurs that year. Instead it was a lucky ass shot by Derek Fisher that lost them the series.

no team DESERVES to win anything :bang