Losing to Eight Seeds

To me, losing to the 8 seed is only fodder for the smack talk from fans of other teams. Losing to a hot 8 seed doesn't hurt any worse than losing to a 4 or 5 seed in the second round. The 1 seed is supposed to at least make it to the Conference Finals, but it doesn't always work out that way.

I think the Bulls would have won with a healthy Rose, just like I think the Spurs would have won with a healthy Manu. It's tough to overcome the loss of your leading scorer. I don't really care if the Bulls get credit, when the Spurs really didn't. Getting that kind of credit is like being on top of the Power Rankings during the regular season - it counts for nothing. We lost, Memphis won, congratulations.

Memphis played like an old school playoffs team. Spurs played like a jumpshooting Suns/Magic team

The lowlight of that series was seeing McDyess lose his cool and yell at the passive Spurs to play tougher. Highlight was Neal with it


But here are excuses, in addition to Manu's injury :

• Parker had divorce distractions
• Duncan got injured towards the end of the season and in the playoffs, Duncan looked spry and had vintage highlights early in the series
• McDyess limped off the court towards the end of the season and had the shoulder stinger in the playoffs, IIRC
• Splitter injured throughout the season and never got enough mins
• God damn Richard Jefferson

But history might show that Rudy Gay's injury was a blessing in disguise last season for the Grizz, FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

Memphis played like an old school playoffs team. Spurs played like a jumpshooting Suns/Magic team

---

That might have been the most painful part of the loss. Most of us could see it coming over the last month of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

So, the Bulls just finished losing to an eighth seed. Obviously their injuries played a major role in their downfall.

My questions:

Does this Bulls loss help erase the memory of what happened last year?

History will remember Rose's injury but will history remember Ginobili's injury?

Should history remember Ginobili's injury or did the Spurs simply lose to a better team?

---

The Grizzlies weren't really an eighth seed. IIRC they could've been as high as sixth because they specifically wanted to play us and loved the match-up with us, and that was before Manu got hurt. I'm a huge Manu homer, but I don't think you can compare the two things. He still played in five of the six games and played pretty well, like at least 75% of what he is. If the Bulls had 75% of Rose, they'd easily beat Philly. Hell, if they had 75% of Noah they easily beat Philly.

A healthy Bulls team is a lock for ECF, minimum. Even if Spurs get past Grizzlies in six or seven, I doubt they'd have gotten past much further. No one to guard Durant outside of RJ (LOL). Duncan was dragging badly. He couldn't move. Not much of a bench to counteract what Harden gives them. We would've needed to score a ton to beat them (as will be the case this year). Bonner would've had to have a monster series.

(And I'll just let that sentence hang on its own.)

Anyway, to answer your questions:

1. No. What happened last year, mainly, was that Tim and Tony sucked. They were the main two culprits. Everything else was far less important. The Bulls have a legit excuse for feeling chagrined.

2. If by "history" you mean "ESPN-addled American sports fans," then no, but they don't remember anything Spurs related anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm a Spurs fan, I remember the good and the bad, and there are enough people (like you) to discuss those memories with, so that's fine. I don't need to have conversations with millions. As far as I'm concerned, us select few got to enjoy a special treat the rest of the country were too dumb to discover, no different than "Arrested Development," really (but thankfully on the air many more years) so we're lucky.

3. The Thunder weren't better, but if we were better, it was by very little. It was a 4-5 match-up hidden as a 1-8. I don't think it had much influence on last year's Finals outcome. Our bigs were shitty, we peaked way too early, that's it. Spurs fans should know better than anyone, being the best team in December is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

nobody wants to see the excrement of a Celtics-Sixers series.

---

Indeed. I'd be willing to say the ECF as well.

We lose that series anyways. Memphis was a better team, was in our heads, had our number.

People blame the 2006 loss to the Mavs on Manu's foul, when the truth is it should never have come down to that.

As shitty as the Spurs played, having a healthy Manu for the entire series would indeed have probably been the difference, so it's disappointing, but the truth is they don't have any excuse for losing that series because of all the other things that were in their control that they didn't do.

Also, I can't think of anyone on the Grizzlies roster that didn't play great, so they deserve a ton of credit for taking advantage of their opportunity.

They also lost Noah. With a healthy Noah they probably still win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

People blame the 2006 loss to the Mavs on Manu's foul, when the truth is it should never have come down to that.

As shitty as the Spurs played, having a healthy Manu for the entire series would indeed have probably been the difference, so it's disappointing, but the truth is they don't have any excuse for losing that series because of all the other things that were in their control that they didn't do.

Also, I can't think of anyone on the Grizzlies roster that didn't play great, so they deserve a ton of credit for taking advantage of their opportunity.

---

I wish more people would say that more often. It's a 48 minute game. For every play like Manu's foul, there are a dozen more that people conveniently forget about. Like, for instance, Bruce, Finley, Barry, and Horry being a combined 4-15 from the 3P line.

There should be an emote for "hat's off". You nailed it.

Being one of five #1 teams in history to lose to a #8 instead of one of four teams certainly helps take some of the sting out. But I don't feel like the Manu injury was a good enough excuse for it. We were way underprepared for that series.

lol RJ











:depressed

Losing Noah was probably the dealbreaker here, as losing only Rose probbaly wasn't enough.

However I don't think there's ever an excuse for a 1st seed to lose to an 8th seed, no matter what. Let's not forget that the 76ers absolutely suck, to the point that even without the big 3 the Spurs would still have beaten them in 6 games. The 76ers had a great start to the season but collapsed really badly at the end and almost missed the playoffs.

The main issue is not Chicago losing Rosein the 1st round, but for the rest of the playoffs. That alone can really take the air out of any team. Losing Noah on top of it really shows the team's not going anywhere in the post-season this year.

That's still not an excuse to lose to a team that would have a (badly) losing record in the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

I wish more people would say that more often. It's a 48 minute game. For every play like Manu's foul, there are a dozen more that people conveniently forget about. Like, for instance, Rasho and Nazr sitting on the fucking bench.

There should be an emote for "hat's off". You nailed it.

---

With all due respect, ^this. :toast

bulls losing without rose, but they were rolling leading up to the playoffs without rose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

With all due respect, ^this. :toast

---

Ah, yes... the ancient small-ball gag reflex. Sorry, I didn't read between the lines. :D

Whatever the reason, games aren't lost on one play. A lot of people could improve their overall outlook on life if they could grasp that fact.

No way Memphis beat the Spurs with Rudy Gay playing.

He's the only reason the Clippers are still playing.

Casual fans might not remember Manu's injury, but a lot of people will. Just because ESPN pretends like the Spurs were fully healthy last year doesn't mean that it's true.

I don't think there's any difference between last year's Spurs and this year's Bulls. Manu was our best player last year and Rose was their best player this year. Losing them both to significant injuries were huge blows. Then let's not forget that Duncan will still trying to recover from a sprained ankle in the series too. Much like Noah. There's a lot of similarities.

manu played 5 of the 6 games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siraulo23

manu played 5 of the 6 games

---

With one arm.

The problem with the Spurs is that the media considers them as a team, a unit package who works as one.
Then we the fans should remember Manu's injury's as a major problem of 11' season, but I doubt the rest of the league does.
So for them Manu's injurie is nonsense in the 11' failure.

Personnally, Even though 11'Spurs were 10 time less stronger than the 12'version, I'm pretty sure a healthy Spurs team should've win these Memphis series take it to 7 or not.

Besides this year I don't see any team better than the spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Healthy Manu and the Spurs still lose that series in 6. Memphis was definitely the better team. The Spurs #1 seed was mostly a function of a ridiculous first two months of the season.

---

Exactly, a healthy Manu doesn't stop Randolph/Gasol dominating the Spurs frontline. Or Parker playing like ass.

We'll get payback this year on our way to :lobt2: #5. :hat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

So, the Bulls just finished losing to an eighth seed. Obviously their injuries played a major role in their downfall.

My questions:

Does this Bulls loss help erase the memory of what happened last year?

History will remember Rose's injury but will history remember Ginobili's injury?

Should history remember Ginobili's injury or did the Spurs simply lose to a better team?

---

No.

No. Rose > Manu, plus Manu still played with his injury. Rose couldn't.

Outside of the fans of a team remembering injuries to their team's players, I don't think history remembers anyone's injuries. They're part of the game, there are teams every year who can claim an injury hurt their chances at winning a title. It's simply too common of an occurance for any one specific injury to be anything more than an afterthought to everyone except the fans of the specific team.

Does this Bulls loss help erase the memory of what happened last year?
No.

History will remember Rose's injury but will history remember Ginobili's injury?
It's funny that when Bayless brings this up about last year's team, the rest of the people at ESPN just laugh and dismiss it. However, if someone like D-Wade broke his elbow, forcing him to miss game 1 then be physically compromised the rest of a series, and the Heat lost, I'll bet all of ESPN would say "Yeah, the Heat lost, BUT ... " Sadly, there is no such acknowledgment for the Spurs, which is BS.

Should history remember Ginobili's injury or did the Spurs simply lose to a better team?
Yes, Ginobili's injury was a factor. Memphis had a significant advantage down low. Although, the Spurs could have minimized the impact of that advantage due to their own significant advantage on the perimeter, but Ginobili's injury (along with Parker's poor play) compromised that advantage.

Did they lose to a better team? I'll say they lost to a team that was playing better at the time. The quality of Memphis' play in the first round last year was reminiscent of how Golden State played against Dallas in '07. They were on fire basically the entire series, and every BS shot went in for them. I laughed so friggin' hard when the Mavs became the first #1 to lose to a #8 in a best of 7 series ... I guess karma really is a bitch.

Last year's Grizzlies were a better team than the current Sixers, and not a true 8-seed. They picked their poison, and survived it like Wesley going up against the Sicilian with death on the line.

I also agree that the loss of Rose was more of a blow to Chicago than losing Manu was to the Spurs...but I wouldn't say by much. Last year's team was very Manu-centric....he was the best player in the regular season, and Parker hadn't quite taken the reigns yet. I think losing Manu affected the Spurs psyche in a very similar way that losing Rose struck the Bulls. With Manu, the Spurs very likely don't lose Game 1, and the whole complexion of that series is changed. Was it as damning....probably not. But it was very close, and likely still a game-changer, but you still can't take anything away from the Grizzlies for taking care of business and seizing the opportunity.

Either way, the Bulls losing to the Sixers may not take away the sting of 8 for Spurs fans, but I think it does help to mitigate the overall stigma that comes with losing to an 8-seed. Considering this has now happened three times in the past six postseasons, it's gotta become more normalized just due to regularity. Parity in the league is pretty high these days, and it illustrates just how easy fate can change for a team with one twist of a knee or snap of an elbow.

The irony is that when the league switched to the 7-game first round, they made the argument that it would ensure less upsets, and it's done the exact opposite. We've now seen three first-round upsets in that 10-year span (30%), as opposed to the two times it happened in the 56 years preceding it (3.5%).