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

Spurs played better but pur 3-0 lead coulda been 1-2 if the shots didnt fall in a 5 minute OT.

Overall they were inferior and we were winning no matter what imo.

The Spurs have more options, deeper team. In my case I wasnt sure that players besides the Big 3 would show up, so my confidence wasnt high. Most of us would agree that we would have been more confident knowing that these players would step up.

The Spurs are pretty good, but Memphis got way overhyped because they beat an OKC team that quit and a LAC team that saw Griffin get hurt. I fear that the Spurs, if they aren't careful, are going to think that they're better than they are when the finals start. The Spurs are an order of magnitude better than Memphis, and the Heat are an order of magnitude better than the Spurs. The Spurs have played three or four really good quarters in the series against Memphis, which was good enough to beat them. They'll have to play three or four really good quarters per game to have a chance against Miami.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The Spurs are pretty good, but Memphis got way overhyped because they beat an OKC team that quit and a LAC team that saw Griffin get hurt. I fear that the Spurs, if they aren't careful, are going to think that they're better than they are when the finals start. The Spurs are an order of magnitude better than Memphis, and the Heat are an order of magnitude better than the Spurs. The Spurs have played three or four really good quarters in the series against Memphis, which was good enough to beat them. They'll have to play three or four really good quarters per game to have a chance against Miami.

---

This. If OKC lost Westbrook at the beginning of the season like Bulls with Rose, they would probably still beat Grizzlies with their talent. However, losing Westbrook in the first round gives them no mental preparation. They just felt, "Oh-oh, there goes our season."

The Spurs are a pretty balanced team. Memphis only goes as far as their bigs take them, and the Spurs frustrated the hell out of Zach Randolph in this series. Much as I hate to admit it, if Matt Bonner had played like he did a couple of years ago, we would be heading back to San Antonio tied 2-2 ... at best. I'm not saying that Bonner did it by himself; obviously he didn't. But he gave the Spurs enough depth there to keep Randolph from taking over for stretches of games.

Are the Spurs "that good"? They are now. Memphis finished the season 9-3, including a victory over the Spurs. The Spurs finished the season 5-8, and caught a break by meeting a crippled Lakers team in the first round. By the end of that series, they were healed up and confident. But the real galvanizing moment may have been that monumental come-from-behind win in Game 1 against Golden State.

Are you asking if the Spurs are good enough to beat Miami? I don't think there's any doubt about that. In Game 3 against the Pacers, Miami was in the zone and even their bench was shooting lights-out; and the Pacers were having one of those games where the ball just won't go in. When that happens, any team in the league is unbeatable. But when both teams are playing their normal games, the Spurs are playing good enough ball to win a 7 game series against them. And don't forget that the Spurs have those in-the-zone nights, too.

Bill Simmons cooks up a crock pot of shit most of the time. I'm pretty sure before Game 4 started (not completely sure), he said that Spurs and Grizzlies would go to a Game 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kidd K

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.

---

There's nothing left to say!

2 games were for the taking for the grizzlies, could have easily been 4-1, 4-2 spurs.

Grizzlies just didn't have enough offense. Credit the Duncan Defense, but Zbo shot horribly. When you are strictly relying on Pondex and Bayless to get the offense going, that is recipe for disaster imo...

1. Parker was a beast.
2. Tiago stepped up. He was all over Gasol and Randolph defensively, and offensively he was Horryesque. Lots of little plays, tipped balls, setting great screens. About all that was missing was a dagger three, but he threw down a couple of sneaky hoops in game 3 OT that helped propel us to that win.
3. Memphis didn't have enough offense to keep up.

the game should have been out of hand early. spurs were dominating the entire time but kept missing easy 3s....

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.

---

And Duncan's resurgence. Tim was playing on one leg and getting owned by their bigs 2 years ago..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capek

Memphis came into the series much hyped, even by some of ST's most vaunted posters, not to mention much of the brain trust at ESPN. And yet the Spurs dispatched them in 4 honestly not so tough games. So what are we to make of this unexpected by most outcome?

There's another much hyped team that will most likely make it out of the East to face us. So did the Spurs just beat a team that was much worse than most people thought, or are the Spurs hugely better than most people were capable of predicting? And depending on where you stand on that question, what does that mean for how you think the most likely Finals match up will play out?

Discuss...

---

The bolded is incorrect. We had two overtimes in the series. PFFFFT not so tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkwaters

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

---

Grizz RS record vs WC teams: 34-18
Spurs RS record vs WC teams: 33-19



And to answer the OP: We'll know in about a month.

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.

---

Agreed. The only players that should for sure be brought back are Gasol, Conley, Davis and Pondexter.

We'll see how things shake out over the summer and as usual, health come playoff time will factor heavily into it as well, but making a few reasonable projections, this team is probably eliminated in the 1st round next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richie

Pop coached the perfect series, exploited the Memphis weaknesses on offence and defence.

Let's see if he can do the same in the Finals. Fingers crossesd

---

This x5. Go BRO!

I'm not really sure. I will say two things:

1) This is the second best team the Spurs have swept (based on winning percentage) in the Duncan era. The only statistically better team was Portland in '99 (35-15), so if you want to go by win total, this is the best team the Spurs have swept in the Duncan era.

2) Memphis was giving everything they had in Game 4. They were playing hard. The Spurs took the punches and punched back even harder every single time. It's been a while since the Spurs have done that against a team with this high of a win total in the playoffs.

You can't go any further with defense and no offense than you can with offense and no defense.

I actually LOLd when I saw the Grizz inbound the ball in the first quarter, and Connolly let it roll all the way to center court. I was thinking "You really don't want there to be MORE possessions in a game, you want less, because then the difference in our offensive efficiency and yours is somewhat blunted."

Spurs just did this to Memphis:

http://i.imgur.com/FG3OSvY.gif