I had originally picked the Spurs in 6 but later changed it to 7. That is what I still think.
But I am truly truly truly tired of listening to the announcers slobber all over the Warriors.
Printable View
I had originally picked the Spurs in 6 but later changed it to 7. That is what I still think.
But I am truly truly truly tired of listening to the announcers slobber all over the Warriors.
Still can't believe they lost the game. The more games played the higher the chances of curry or thompson going off.
Duncan is 37, Manu is 36 and Tony is beat to shit.. Reg season rest will not cure that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Keepin' it real
Glass half full but this team is too old to win it all. If we have to sweep or put everyone away in 5 to have a chance, then we're too old. If we need OKC and Miami to have their best players go down with injury, that's not a legit championship. It would be like the Rockettes championships when Jordan retired and just started coming back. Go through the best and be the best or you don't deserve to be on top of the hill.
Half empty. It was half full after game 2 because I thought the Spurs had figured out how to defend the Warriors. I still think that's sorta true, but the lack of execution, the shoddy rebounding, and the obvious fatigue have me worried about this series. It would have made a huge difference to win last night and be able to close out at home in game 5.
After sleeping on this loss I'm very optimistic, GS doesn't win another game in this series
Then why do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbreiden83080
I see the '05 finals, when the Spurs grinded out 4 wins vs probably the better team.
Eh, it's a best 2 out of 3 series with us having homecourt. We've proven that we can win in their house. They had to get insanely hot to win in ours.
I still like our chances, but we definitely have to take them seriously.
I just pulled the glass out of the dishwasher and it's cracked. Examining further, the partcles making up the glass: heart, hussle, meddle, resolve, free throws, rebounds, rotations and matt bonner are all considered unstable at this juncture.
Might need to consider a new glass before it's too late. Oh wait, this team doesn't seem thirsty enough. Oh well, pressure bursts glass. I mean, pipes.
:fishing
I think game 4 was a trap game of sorts for us. We had yanked home court advantage back, got the win on the road we needed, and Mr. Ginobili found his 3. The short turnaround always favors the younger team. I thought we got the lead and got complacent. Now we have home court advantage, and 2.5 days to come home and rest. I hope I'm right, I think we have them right where we want them, and I think we need a long hard fought series after what happened with L.A. It would be nice to blow through every playoff series 4-0. I don' think we can do that, especially to Miami. Therefore we need some character-building along the way, and I would rather be having this with Golden State than Denver. We need to handle Andrew Bogus down low.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcadian
Spurs in 6. i had them in 5. oh well
i don't see it either way...i see it as a typical 2nd round series where a team that causes matchup issues for the spurs is giving us fits. on the other side, our playoff savy and hall of fame cast is not an easy out for the upstart warriors.
our home courts has not been great but i'd still rather have it.
Is my name Gregg Popovich?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keepin' it real
Glass completely full. Most of the people who would argue that the Spurs should have taken a 3-1 lead are also the ones who say the Warriors should have left San Antonio with a 2-0 lead. I don't play to the extremes of either spectrum; neither of these teams is done until the other wins 4 games. Period. The Spurs went to Oracle, corrected a lot of mistakes from the first two games, and are going back to San Antonio with a 2-2 series tie and two of the final 3 games at home. In the last few years, I have never seen a Spurs team helmed by Tim Duncan and Pop take a demoralizing hit. They fought back to force Game 6 against Memphis in 2011 and played that game hard until the end, they took a haymaker to the face in Game 5 against OKC last year and were an entire officiating squad away from having Game 7 at the AT&T. The Spurs have rarely let a loss that didn't completely eliminate them from the postseason get to them. An opponent gets hot, fights back, lands some blows, and the Spurs drop the hammer. Tim Duncan will not allow Game 5 to slip away this year, the Spurs have an excellent chance to put an entire world of pressure on Steph Curry in Game 6.
The pessimists will look at this as an opportunity for the Warriors to take another one in SA and push the Spurs to the brink. However, we've seen the Spurs respond before, and I have a gut feeling we'll see it again. They are the better team and even if it takes seven games, they will advance.
Some of those either come with caveats ('08 Cavs had one of the greatest players ever; ditto for '10 Thunder, although he wasn't quite playing at that level then), flat out weren't heavily favored (like the '11 Mavs, who many were predicting would be upset) or had a key injury ('12 Heat's only credible big played all of 15:48 in series and another of their big three played the first half of the series on a gimpy knee).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurs7794
As far as the others, fair enough. But in none of those instances do I recall the vast majority actually thinking they were going to blow it and sure enough, they didn't. The Spurs have numerous times and not only would most not be surprised if they did so again, but many are now expecting it to happen. This is why this team is clearly not feared across the league and hasn't been for years despite their gaudy regular season record.
As far as your Spurs examples, they were not heavily favored in '03 against the Lakers and in '07 against the Suns, they were not only not favored, but they were considered the underdogs.
Good point. To me that's one thing that makes it clear Phil Jackson is better. Pop cannot handle expectations. How many series have they been picked to win and they've lost the last couple of years? If the team is simply not good enough, instead of focusing on W's in the regular season he should be focusing on a style of play that will work in the playoffs and not abandoning it for small ball?Quote:
Originally Posted by TD 21
It depends on your perspective of the water. If you think the water is good, there's not enough. If you think the water is bad, there's too much.
If you think the Spurs are lucky to be there, that they are not good enough to win, then the glass is half full. If you think the Spurs should have swept the series, the glass is half empty. If you believe either team will win a ring, the glass is smarter than you.