Diaw's uncontested layup(historically significant)

[Jimcs50]

With 26 secs left, the Spurs were up 3, so the Spurs virtually gave Diaw a layup, knowing that 2 points would not hurt them, because they had the clock and good foul shooters on their side.

This caused me once again to lament the same situation in the 2006 game 7 with Dallas, with almost the same amt of time on the clock. Had the Spurs just gaven Dirk that layup(instead of Manu's block attempt) like they gave Diaw the layup, the Spurs would be going for their 4th straight championship and 6th overall, this year. Had that happened, there would be no doubt that the Spurs were the 2nd greatest dynasty in NBA history, behind only Boston, and IMO ahead of Chicago)

I am just glad that history did not repeat itself.....I guess the Spurs learned a valuable, but costly lesson.

[m33p0]

lesson learned.......................































........................... and applied.

[Jimcs50]

I guess we can hold on that comfort.

[1Parker1]

:lol Ironically if you re-watch that play from yesterday, Ginobili did once again try to go for the steal/block. He was just lucky that the contact was minimal.

[Jimcs50]

:lol Ironically if you re-watch that play from yesterday, Ginobili did once again try to go for the steal/block. He was just lucky that the contact was minimal.


I would have personally driven down to SA and shot Manu, had Manu given them a 3 pt play again and lost that game in OT again.

:lol

[Jimcs50]

I thought of a name for Diaw's critical turnover with 30 secs left when he threw the pass into the stands.


The French Mis-Connection


:)

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I thought of a name for Diaw's critical turnover with 30 secs left when he threw the pass into the stands.


The French Mis-Connection


:)

:lol
How about Le Rod Strickland?

[Kermit]

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami? It could've easily been us that Wade and Salvatore went off on.

[Obstructed_View]

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami? It could've easily been us that Wade and Salvatore went off on.

The Mavericks choked that series away. They were trying to wrap up the title before the end of the weekend.

[Jimcs50]

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami? It could've easily been us that Wade and Salvatore went off on.


The Spurs would have won in 5 at worst....that is without question.

[Kermit]

The Spurs would have won in 5 at worst....that is without question.

There is no way of knowing how much the Spurs would've won by, or if they would've won at all. They performed their own choke job in both series. Who is to say they wouldn't have done the same in the finals. It's great to be a hardcore Spurs fan (and I never thought I would say this), but myopia is never beneficial to any fan base.

[Jimcs50]

Not myopia, hindsight.

[Kermit]

Not hindsight, wishful thinking.

[Jimcs50]

Not hindsight, wishful thinking.


Potato- Potato

[Kermit]

Tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!

That was fun.

[Obstructed_View]

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami?
For the same reason you assume we would've beaten the Suns in the conference finals.

[JamStone]

With 26 secs left, the Spurs were up 3, so the Spurs virtually gave Diaw a layup, knowing that 2 points would not hurt them, because they had the clock and good foul shooters on their side.

This caused me once again to lament the same situation in the 2006 game 7 with Dallas, with almost the same amt of time on the clock. Had the Spurs just gaven Dirk that layup(instead of Manu's block attempt) like they gave Diaw the layup, the Spurs would be going for their 4th straight championship and 6th overall, this year. Had that happened, there would be no doubt that the Spurs were the 2nd greatest dynasty in NBA history, behind only Boston, and IMO ahead of Chicago)

I am just glad that history did not repeat itself.....I guess the Spurs learned a valuable, but costly lesson.

That Dallas series was not for the NBA championship.

[SenorSpur]

With 26 secs left, the Spurs were up 3, so the Spurs virtually gave Diaw a layup, knowing that 2 points would not hurt them, because they had the clock and good foul shooters on their side.

This caused me once again to lament the same situation in the 2006 game 7 with Dallas, with almost the same amt of time on the clock. Had the Spurs just gaven Dirk that layup(instead of Manu's block attempt) like they gave Diaw the layup, the Spurs would be going for their 4th straight championship and 6th overall, this year. Had that happened, there would be no doubt that the Spurs were the 2nd greatest dynasty in NBA history, behind only Boston, and IMO ahead of Chicago)

I am just glad that history did not repeat itself.....I guess the Spurs learned a valuable, but costly lesson.

Funny of you to bring this up. When watching that play and seeing that Diaw had Manu isolated in the post, I remembered thinking the same thing. In fact, I yelled at the TV, "Dammit Manu. Don't foul him this time!"

[PM5K]

You gotta pass six first, until then....

[Kermit]

For the same reason you assume we would've beaten the Suns in the conference finals.

I really can't assume that they would've beaten Phoenix in the conference finals, although the Suns were missing Amare. Who knows what would've happened injury wise.

[ShoogarBear]

In the game chat, I wrote "glad Manu didn't foul" immediately after that play, folllowed a few seconds later by Spurm.

[LilMissSPURfect]

:lol
How about Le Rod Strickland?

:nope:nope

[SpurOutofTownFan]

I thought of a name for Diaw's critical turnover with 30 secs left when he threw the pass into the stands.


The French Mis-Connection


:)

How about the Damon-to-Tucson pass?

[K-State Spur]

Considering it a foregone conclusion might have been a little strong, but the Spurs matched up pretty damn well with Miami - better than Dallas did. Taking that into account and realizing that mental toughness was all that Dallas needed to win the series (which the Spurs obviously have), it's not unreasonable to expect that the Spurs would have won it all that year.

Ifs and buts though, they lost and it's still 4 in 9.

[Jimcs50]

In the game chat, I wrote "glad Manu didn't foul" immediately after that play, folllowed a few seconds later by Spurm.

So, I guess we all learned something in 06.

:lol

[timvp]

Regarding that play, why the hell did Pop not put three bigs on the court when he saw the Suns in their tri-towers set? D'Antoni had ran that same play countless times. Put a big on Diaw and they would have had to go to another play.

And yeah, that had And-1 written all over it. Luckily Diaw's position was good enough that he only got the layup.

[TampaDude]

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami? It could've easily been us that Wade and Salvatore went off on.

+1 Nobody was getting by the Heat in 2006.

[DazedAndConfused]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

[Tacker]

With 26 secs left, the Spurs were up 3, so the Spurs virtually gave Diaw a layup, knowing that 2 points would not hurt them, because they had the clock and good foul shooters on their side.

This caused me once again to lament the same situation in the 2006 game 7 with Dallas, with almost the same amt of time on the clock. Had the Spurs just gaven Dirk that layup(instead of Manu's block attempt) like they gave Diaw the layup, the Spurs would be going for their 4th straight championship and 6th overall, this year. Had that happened, there would be no doubt that the Spurs were the 2nd greatest dynasty in NBA history, behind only Boston, and IMO ahead of Chicago)

I am just glad that history did not repeat itself.....I guess the Spurs learned a valuable, but costly lesson.

Spurs have only 4 champions in 9 years, Bulls have 6 champions in 8 years, how does that make the Spurs a better dynasty than the Bulls?

[Jimcs50]

Spurs have only 4 champions in 9 years, Bulls have 6 champions in 8 years, how does that make the Spurs a better dynasty than the Bulls?

Read my first post, Mr ADHD

I said if Manu had not given Dirk the 3 pt play and Spurs had won the game, they would be going for their 4th straight and 6th championship....that would make them the 2nd best dynasty, ahead of the Bulls, IMO.

[Jimcs50]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

Read my last post, Mr ADHD II

[Agloco]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

The word dynastic is meant to imply an event or norm which is in place for a long period of time. As such I don't think the Lakers of the early 2000's qualify in this discussion. Making the finals in 2004 and losing counts for nothing. Threee for three aint bad, but it's hardly dynastic. By your logic, the Buffalo Bills are quite possibly one of the best dynasties bar none.......

Any team winning championships over an extended period of time (5+ years) could and should be considered dynastic. I give you the 90's Bulls, 60's Celtics and 80's Lakers (who repeated just once BTW). So if the Spurs repeat this year, where are they with respect to those Lakers?

[ClingingMars]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

asterisk year? you're starting to sound like a Suns fan, man.

- Mars

[T Park]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

Why is it an asterisk year?

What advantage did the Spurs have over everyone else?

[sprrs]

asterisk year? you're starting to sound like a Suns fan, man.

- Mars

Not considering it was Phil Jackson who first started the whole thing.

[spursfan09]

I think anyone who thinks of 99 as an asterisk year is just jealous. I mean what? Did the Spurs sweep your team that year? Oh wait... it makes sense.

[PlayoffEx-static]

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

Dude, put down the crack pipe. The 80's Lakers were a pedestrian 5-3 in Finals appearances. The 80s Celtics were 3-2. The Millenium Lakers at least just lost once in the Finals (3-1), but they flamed out after only 5 years, lacking the duration of the previously named two teams. I'll give you the 90s Bulls because they never choked on the big stage and had a solid 8 year run, but the Millenium Spurs have the duration and the undefeated 4-0 Finals record and easily surpass either 80's squad.