Reply With Quote
Ouch.I think [Conley]'s better than Acie Earl to be an NBA point, though if the Hawks get top three, and they could, the pick goes over to 2008 unprotected.
A good article that even touches on why the officiating went against the Spurs in games 3 and 4 against Dallas last year(Cuban intimidation). While it contains some grammatical errors(why does nobody proofread these articles for such high profile websites?) it is an intriguing read.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18064691
Ouch.I think [Conley]'s better than Acie Earl to be an NBA point, though if the Hawks get top three, and they could, the pick goes over to 2008 unprotected.
Mentioning officiating = lame
Spurs could certainly win it all this year though...
Mentioning officiating = lameTell that to your fellow Mavs fans in the NBA forum.
Realistically, the officiating was lopsided and inconsistent both ways, depending on where the game was played. This year, the refs just need to be consistent and decide what they are going to call and what they are not and stick with it. Not that hard I would think. I don't remember who the officials were last year, but to me, the league office, if possible, needs to have only experienced officials in those type of series.
FWIW: WCF vs. WCSF = More experienced officials.
I have...many times...
It never became much of an issue because the Spurs remain perhaps the classiest and most professional of organizations, and never complain about apparent inequities.
AWESOME, That is my fav. thing about being a SPURS fan.
interesting reading...and I rarely read these lengthy articles.
That read was painful. He offered no original insight, and it is clear that msnbc does not edit their product.
When a place publishes a written piece, it is only partially on the author to correct errors -- they are the talent, not the coach-- but ultimately it is up to the editors to make them clean and polished. And it reflects poorly on the publisher when the pieces are rough, especially to the extent that this one goes.
I mean, it's good to hear someone talk about the Spurs in such a positive light, but the rhetoric is by no means original or investigative. Want to change someone's opinion? Show them an angle they haven't seen. This one has been overplayed and it is getting annoying, seeing them use the "been there all along" card. Well guess what? This take has been there all along as well. Either play a new beat, or please, get off the damn drums.
Agreed. I came away from that series feeling that the refs seemed less intent on tilting the series towards either team than simply extending it to seven games. I suspect the Mavs got the whistles in the beginning since they were probably perceived (justly or not) as slight underdogs, but when the Spurs found themselves behind the eight ball they appeared to benefit more from the calls.
NEVER use Sam Smith's opinion on anything. It may be cool to see that he's liking your Spurs, but the guy is a washed-up old that gives crappy insight without research or will just straight-up jack it from someone else.
God, there are so many holes in that column.
Sam Smith picking them is the biggest jinx on the Spurs yet. There's no bigger unethical s bag in sports journalism (except maybe Skip Bayless, who also picks the Spurs if I remember correctly).
Anyone picking the Spurs is an unethical s bag. That includes you, Stephen A. Smith, and you, Sir Charles. Haven't these guys read the NBA memo that states Dallas and Phoenix are THE teams to beat? WTF is wrong with these guys.
Well-written. All the analysis in the world will be useless until Elson steps on the court to tip against Damp, though.
Sam Smith is the biggest media blow hard ever. And he is frequently wrong. Plus he hates Cuban because Cuban has pointed out his often incorrectly written articles. So no surprise.
But the Spurs and Mavs will play for the WCF's in a few weeks and it will be a great series. I can't wait!
got no problem with Chuck picking them. Smith and Bayless are unscrupulous assholes, however. it's not about someone picking the spurs, it's about who it is that's picking them. why don't you just go back to posting lightly humorous pictures, you're much better at that.
Blaming the refs for last season's meltdown, instead of Pop's horrible coaching is ludicrous.
Sam needs to retire.
Sam's article not anything that hasn't been said on this board all season. I wasn't terribly impressed. It is nice that someone in the media is recognizing the good things the Spurs are doing this season (particularly since the all star break), but it is not insightful or eye poping. I am looking forward to Dallas vs San Antonio the sequal. Hoping for another seven game series! We already know the officiating will suck BOTH WAYS, so why don't we all concede that now! May the Best Team win!
By the way isn't it funny how a Few Mavs fans totaly hated this article, calling people who picked the spurs Blow hards and assholes? Why, because they point out that the Spurs can still beat the Mavs? I mean the article did suck,but c'mon let us have our moment!
Nah, a lot of the points being made in the media are legit. It's just that Sam Smith sucks balls.
Blaming the refs for last season's meltdown, instead of Pop's horrible coaching is ludicrous.
Sam needs to retire.
painful was watching game 3 and 4.......duncan fouls out when dirk steps on him........but i suppose it all panned out ehy?
hopefully this time around Duncan can try to focus and predict where IRK's next step will b so to avoid that predicament again!
What struck me about the Dallas-SA playoff series was the stellar play despite the poor officiating. There were bad calls all around on both sides. It just seemed that the variety of bad calls that came the Spurs way came during critical moments of the game and affected the outcome - the Ginobili foul on Dirk notwithstanding.
Why Manu, why?
But Buck, I thought the NBA conspiracy determined the champion.
I'd rather Jimcs50 predict a Spurs championship.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
