Was Memphis really this bad, or are the Spurs really this good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phxspurfan

Grizz were undermanned. They really missed Rudy Gay.

---

I honestly don't think they would have been any better with Gay. They would likely have been worse. Tayshaun Prince is no joke on defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Grizzlies in 9, tbh.

---

We all lay eggs, whatever. Keep bringing us those grades.:flag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Grizzlies in 9, tbh.

---

:toast:lol

What really hurt Grizzlies is Allen can't shoot threes and brings nothing to the offense really, even Bowen made teams pay for doubling Duncan by hitting the three

Spurs that good, tbh. In all honesty, if Manu doesn't break his arm and Tim doesn't sprain his ankle in 2011, we handle Memphis and have a legit chance at a title. Last year, if we don't start getting straight up fucked by the refs, and Harden doesn't go MJ on us, we have another legit chance at a title. This year, the odds just even'd out. Ask any Heat fan last year, and they were far more scared of playing the Spurs. We're their nightmare, and shit just got real for them. Look for them to step up and try to finish the Pacers as quickly as possible.

Combination of both. The Grizzlies were a good team, but contrary to ESPN talking heads' beliefs, they didn't actually match up with us as good as they claimed.

Conley was never going to play Parker even, because the media underrates Parker (until tonight, obviously they didn't).

Duncan's defensive ability has been massively underrated this season. He led the NBA in defensive rating and carried the Spurs up to the 3rd best team defensive rating in the NBA despite our team being filled with role players and guys with bad defensive ability like Bonner, Blair, and Neal.

ZBo was not actually as good as he was against us 2 years ago. He peaked while Duncan was having his worst season and playing at like 65%.

I don't think it was a matter of the Grizzlies being really overrated neccessarily (except in the areas I mentioned), it was mostly a matter of the Spurs being WAY underrated because they closed the season weakly.

The Grizzlies were a great team. . .2nd in the NBA in defense. What they didn't tell you is that the Spurs were 3rd. They also didn't tell you that the Spurs have been among the elite in offense for 3 straight seasons, while the Grizzlies were noticably below average.

I think those are the main points to be made. The Grizzlies were a good team and I don't want to take anything away from their season or their players. But anyone who thought Conley was going to play Parker even, that ZBo was going to go off on the REAL DPOY Tim Duncan, and that ther Grizzlies' defense (which was barely better than ours) was going to hold down our elite offense that much while their weak offense was going to score better against our nearly as good defense. . .you were kidding yourself.

Spurs are dope right now. Parker is 100%. Duncan is clicking. Green is good. Even fucking Matt BONER is playing his best playoff basketball ever. All we're missing is Manu Ginobili getting his shit together and Leonard's knee getting 100%. Knock on wood with the health thing obviously.

2011 Spurs team was half as strong as the 2013. Everyone healthy, experienced and hungry makes Grizzlies like the Bobcats.

No idea how you could say these were 4, not so tough games... the Grizz made big runs in every game, and there were 2 OTs. Parker playing out of his mind does not make the series easy, exactly ...

That said, it's basically impossible to predict how the Spurs will play in the Finals.

Why do we have to downplay the Spurs' accomplishment by acting as if Memphis wasn't/isn't a good team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anakha

4 honestly not so tough games? I beg to disagree.

I'd argue this might have been one of the most competitive sweeps ever.

---

I think there'd be some people that my take the opposing side of that argument. Sure, the middle two games went to overtime, but we pulled away quite definitively in both overtime periods; eventually what appears like competitiveness becomes a pattern of superiority if one teams comes out on top repeatedly. Personally I was surprised (though admittedly not as much as the Simmonites on this forum) by how deftly we were able to keep the Grizz at arm length this series. After all, I thought the Grizz had 2 win in them. So while I saw tons of holes in the Grizz and didn't think they were nowhere near as good as some people *cough* timvp *cough* stated they were, I'm at a loss to really say what or if that means anything to how good the Spurs are. My gut reaction is that while the Grizz were definitely overrated by a lot of people, that implies that the Spurs were also underrated. And at the end of the day they still managed the first WCF sweep in 10 years.

If I hadn't chucked my homer glasses in at least '08, and we didn't have 10 days until the finals, I wouldn't be agonizing over this subtle distinction, but I starting to feel that it just might be possible to assert that the Spurs have another gear in them this post season, similar to in '05 when the ran with the Suns and pounded it out with the Sonics and Pistons, an extra gear they can turn it on in just the ways they need it to beat the particular team they're playing, and if this is true, there's good reason to believe that they just might beat the Heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

No idea how you could say these were 4, not so tough games... the Grizz made big runs in every game, and there were 2 OTs. Parker playing out of his mind does not make the series easy, exactly ...

---

Imagine a heavy weight boxer, who's 20-0. 25% of his boughts ended in KO, 50% TKO, and 25% by judges decision. That roughly maps onto the Spurs blowing out the Grizz in Game 1, going over time in games 2 and 3, and beating them in regulation in game 4. Now, are you telling me that this boxing we're imagining wouldn't be view as having a dominant record? Sure, it wasn't all knock outs in the first round, but he was the one still standing every match. I think you're overvaluing the sample size; I think the Spurs would have won 10 out of 10 games following ruffly that 25-50-25% pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The Spurs defense was the difference, IMO... as I said on my prediction thread, we already knew the Grizz had trouble scoring, and since Game 3 of the Warriors series, the Spurs took it to another level defensively. I don't think Memphis was overrated. It was clear they would've had a much harder time getting past OKC if Westbrook was there, but they're a solid bunch of guys. The Spurs just had a great gameplan.

---

I think it would have been a closer series with a healthy Westbrook just like in '11. They really needed another scoring option to keep the defense honest.

The Spurs definitely played the better series, but two games went into OT and a third wasn't decided until the final minute. A few made outside shots from Bayless and Pondexter and a few misses from Green and Leonard, and we're looking at a whole different ballgame. The main difference was Pop, IMO. He forced Hollins to make the adjustments instead of playing from behind. Monster performances from Parker and TD certainly helped.

if the grizz had a couple of shooters, the spurs would have struggled more

every game was close except game 1 and i thought spurs played handicap in game 4 with pop playing bonner so much in the 4th

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ViceCity84

How did the Grizzlies win 56 games?

---

You forgot, they played Eastern Conference teams 30 times. Gotta love the opportunity to beat up on the junior varsity.

The Grizz did have shooters but they had to come off the bench first. If that's what you want to blame, then blame Hollins.

The Grizzlies are an awful team by conference-finals standards. I know people tried to hype them up as a legitimate contender, but they really weren't. They. Just. Can't. Score. That's the whole point right there. They can't put up points, and their defense is only good until a team figures out their obvious weaknesses. They can hit a groove for sure, but they wouldn't've beaten a healthy Thunder or Warriors. I honestly think they should blow it up next year by trading Randolph and finding a new coach. They're ceiling in a normal year is a second-round exit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Tbh, this series depended on the health of Tony Parker. If he was hobbled, Grizzlies probably win. If he was typical TP, Spurs win a tough series. If he plays his best series ever, Spurs sweep.

---

+1

We forget, but heading into this series Tony just didn't look right. That and there were concerns (still are) around Kawhi's knee and Duncan looked a bit worn as well. After these four games though, those concerns are largely a thing of the past. We look healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

The Grizzlies are an awful team by conference-finals standards. I know people tried to hype them up as a legitimate contender, but they really weren't. They. Just. Can't. Score. That's the whole point right there. They can't put up points, and their defense is only good until a team figures out their obvious weaknesses. They can hit a groove for sure, but they wouldn't've beaten a healthy Thunder or Warriors. I honestly think they should blow it up next year by trading Randolph and finding a new coach. They're ceiling in a normal year is a second-round exit.

---

You called this one pretty early...and you called it right. I remember you saying five games or, if we get hot, a sweep.

Props on the good call. :toast

First, I thought the Grizz were not quite as good as advertised. Watching the OKC series I thought Scott Brooks showed he was not ready for prime time. He could not make any adjustments to compensate for the loss of Westbrook. His offense turned into Durant bringing the ball up the court, going one-on-five and shooting. Even with that 2 games were on Durant's hand for the win, but did not go down. That is an offense that a really good defense can rake over the coals. No doubt in my mind that with a healthy Westbrook that OKC wins that series.
Having said that one of the things that most people miss about the Spurs is that they have such a talented squad that the Spurs can play the OTHER team's style and beat them at it. They outran the Warriors and outslugged the Grizz. Heck, even the Warriors series only goes 5 if not for a 36 hour turn around between games 3 and 4. How does this fare going forward? Against the Pacers I think it is similar to the Grizz, but the Spurs drop a couple of games. Against the Heat, if Parker plays like he did in the Grizz series I don't think the Spurs can be beat. I think they have to put James on him to defend and that would take a lot out of his own offense. This is the year Duncan's legacy becomes so great that there is no doubt that he is in fact the most dominant player of his generation.

Spur's had one dominant win, won two coin toss overtime games, and rode Parker to win the last game. Though it was a sweep, it wasn't a blow-out - a couple of different makes/misses and we are still playing. The Grizz are one player short of matching the Spurs - they need another perimeter scorer and a wider variety of offensive sets.

Just read that this was the second home game Grizzley's owner attended this year?

Grizz hit a couple more FTs (and they missed a LOT) and this series is knotted 2-2. Give Spurs credit for the clutch gene but this was not your typical 4-0 whitewash (see Fakers, Los Angeles).

Memphis is a very solid team, but 3 out of 4 of the wins vs Thunder were really toss-ups, which OKC would have had with a normal Durant in crunch time, even without Westbrook.
Spurs controlled pretty much all games except the beginning of G3.

GSW was very different beast, as they controlled the first two games and it took a miracle comeback (and a lot of inexperience from the Warriors) to win G1.
I have seen some 2005ish defense from the Spurs, since G3 of the GSW series. Yet the Warriors managed to win one more.

All in all, the real WCF was the Golden State series.

A close win is still a win.

Spurs in 6 over Miami.

Spurs in 5 over Indiana.