Reply With Quote
Assholes disrespecting the thread starter. Show some ing respect!
people act like manu was close to being the player he was capable of. Do people forget he finished in top 10 in MVP voting!!! and he was off the bench!!!!
You're not a ing Spurs fan poser. ty try.
He is the ing game and he is that damn good! How dare you talk like that to the king of kings!
hate to say it....but this thread is right....manu playing with or without injuries wouldnt have helped...it was lamar that killed us...gasol that killed us....face it manu will soon turn into another shooter with time...his Dwade style of play isnt gonna cut it anymore...and when he cant cuts to the basket...he turns the ball over...and that is never good...........go spurs go
The reason is cus of the scoring draughts lamar didnt kill us and neither did anyone else it is the scoring draughts 90% and 10% ty scheldule
Let me first say that the Lakers deserved to get to the Finals, but I feel the Spurs had things going against them. Had the Spurs played the Lakers in the 1st round it would have been a much more contested series. The Spurs essentially played 3 "Conference Finals" in a row. The Lakers didn't seem more impressive than the Suns or the Hornets.
After coming back from 0-2 against the Hornets, the Spurs tied it up 3-3 on a Thursday night. The Spurs then had to wait FOUR days later to play the game 7. The NBA didn't want to interfere with the opening night of the WNBA on Saturday. Meanwhile the Lakers took care of the Jazz on Sunday. Had the Spurs played on Saturday(like they should have) and won they would have had at least 3-4 whole days of rest. Instead they had to fly directly to LA and we all know how they had to sleep on the runway. They played well in game 1 and built a 20 point lead. They then proceeded to shoot 15% in the 4th quarter. Did the Spurs really just choke, or was fatigue a factor? There is no question Pop would have rested Manu in game 2 had we won.
These events were not the reason the Spurs lost, but they certainly were a factor. This is part of the 'luck' factor that people talk about. The Spurs didn't have it this year.
Last edited by dastrey; 06-03-2008 at 04:31 PM.
Health is always a factor IMHO, but it affects all teams equally. Therefore it can never really be used as an excuse. It's just an external force that players have no control over. You have to make due with what you have.
I don't think the majority of the fans think it was because of Manu.
We had defensive mistakes, couldn't score the ball (not just manu, anyone not named tim duncan) and we blew double digit leads, now if we built those leads without manu, we should've been able to sustain them without manu.
manu said in an interview himself that game 3 was a delusion because he shot a bunch of threes.
we gassed out towards the end of the playoffs, happens, we'll be back next year reloaded.
A better series from Manu would have changed things drastically (and would've helped counter the other problems the team had), but that wasn't the only problem, and certainly not the only reason the Spurs lost the series. Scoring droughts (games 1 and 5), rebounding (game 4), bench production (basically every game), etc.
that avatar is awesome
I'm not saying we were CERTAIN to win with a healthy Manu, but the series would've gone 7 if he were at all healthy, and I think we would've won it.
Why? Well, we had trouble finishing off games. We lost games 1 and 4 in the last few minutes. What does Manu do for us when he's healthy? FINISH GAMES. He is our Mariano Riviera - the Closer. He is, by stats, in the top 3 clutch players in the league. That's what he does. However, he was clearly injured because he had no lift/explosion/lateral movement, and thus couldn't play his regular clutch closer game (driving, getting to the line, knocking down step-backs and pull-ups). Manu was at about 30% physically, and that cost us any chance of winning the series.
A Laker was going in for a layup on the left side in the half court offense in game 4. Manu came along the right baseline to challenge, and he never does half assed. His hand didn't even come up to rim level with a running start. That's how much lift he didn't have in this series.
I'll take a healthy Bynum from them if we can have a healthy Manu, and I like our chances. Bynum isn't going for 40, and is going to subtract from what Gasol gets.
The ing idiots have forgotten how good a decently healthy Ginobili is.
I don't see the ankle as an "excuse."
I see it as a huge reason. Doesn't excuse our loss.
no . it was only 2.5 months ago that this guy was being discussed (by the media, not just spurs fans) as a darkhorse MVP candidate.
The ing idiots have forgotten how good a decently healthy Ginobili is.
then they act like its NORMAL that guys like radmanovic had little trouble guarding him.
The "what if" scenarios always happen after a series is over. The Spurs fans have theirs as does every team that loses and goes fishing. Health is a major factor in any run to the championship regardless of what sport being talked about. Manu's health in this series was a critical factor in the Spurs losing but those things happen. If you really want to play the "what if" then consider the following:
1999: Full season and those extra games would have meant more time for other teams to gel and be better going into the playoffs. Sean's 3? Laker's meltdown in game 2 in the 4th Q? Do the Spurs win their first?
2000: TD doesn't have a knee injury - how far do the Spurs go?
2001: Derek Anderson was a critical part of our success that year but got injured in the Dallas series. He was totally ineffective after coming back and trying to play with the injury. How far do the Spurs go with a healthy DA?
2002: DRob injures his back in the last week of the season in Detroit. His mobility is limited. We lead the Lakers in 4 out of 5 games going into the 4th Q but lost the series 4-1. Does Drob's injury have any effect on the outcome of that series?
2003: Lakers were injured at PF for most of the year and therefore Horry plays more (starter) minutes than usual at that position and against a much higher caliber of talant. He's banged up and tired going into the playoffs and dosen't have that extra bit of energy he usually has. He misses the 3 pt shot in game 5 - goes halfway down and then comes out. If made do the Spurs have the same mindset to blow out the Lakers in LA in game 6 and go on to win the le?
2004: .4 - enough said.
2005: R. Wallace doesn't double Manu in game 5 thereby leaving Horry open for a 3. Do the Pistons win game 5 and the then the le?
2006: Plantar faciatis and Manu's brain fart against Dirk in game 7 vs. Dallas. Do the Spurs go on and win the le?
2007: Horry's hip check - again enough said.
20008: Manu's health.
All "what if" situations that can be debated. Personally I believe the following:
1999: Strike shorten seasons always bring out the "what if" scenarios more than any other ones. A full season means that 32 more games were to be played. Anything could have happened. Injuries to key players is always a possibility. But the Spurs that year were extremely well disciplined and played excellent lockdown D. Most teams got to shoo just once because our defensive rebounding was great. Spurs win le.
2000: We absolutely get out of the first round and probably face the Lakers in the WCF.
Chances are 50/50 we win.
2001: Lakers and Shaq were playing great and DA would have prevented a sweep but no series win.
2002: Spurs in this one - you don't come back 4 out of 5 games in the 4th Q to beat us. That year those comebacks had to do with second chance points, offensive rebounds and the lack of interior D by the Spurs. A healthy DRob solves all three. Spurs win le.
2003: 50/50 chance the Spurs lose that series if they lose game 5 in SA. But the Lakers were running on fumes - injuries maybe - Spurs win le.
2004: 50/50 chance for either team to win the WC. IF Spurs win against LA then they had to play the Timberwolves. That year both teams slugged it out and that series would have been slightly in the Spurs favor but almost too close to call. But Detroit that year was awesome. They were just on a mission. No one beats them that year.
2005: Detroit wins game 5 if Wallace stays at home on Horry. Horry had a clean look and time to set up. If Wallace stays home - he is a good defender BTW - its most likely that Horry misses the shot and Detroit has the inside track to repeat. Better than even chance to win the Finals. Spurs would have had to win both games 6 & 7 to win the Finals. Their mindset after those 3 road loses is tough to calculate. I think they do win both but it wouldn't have surprised me if they don't. Spurs win le.
2006: Spurs take it all if they beat Dallas. Phoenix was no match for the Spurs that year and neither would the Heat had been. Spurs win le.
2007: Tough call because I believe that that team had the best chance to beat us but didn't. Even though they had that lead in game 5 and then lost it to us I still think that if there weren't any suspensions then the series goes 7. And as we all know game 7 are always a crap shoot. Still I believe Spurs win le.
2008: Manu's health vs Bynum's health and his role on the Lakers. If Bynum doesn't get hurt does the Gasol trade ever happen? I'll take a healthy Manu over a healthy Bynum anyday. But the Spurs this year I always felt that something was missing, that killer instinct were they used to grab a team by it's throat and choke the klfe out of them wasn't there. WE gave up leads too many times. Somehow I felt that this year may not happen even though I thought that by some mircale they would gut it out. ????? - Unknown
So my "what if" scenarios give the Spurs 6 les in 9 years with two back-to-backs. Absolute dynasty with no discussion to the contrary.
Let any fan from other teams do the same and the Spurs might win one or two if that. We all know about the asterik season and the hipcheck/ We are the Stern's season. So there will be countless other reasons why this team should win and that team shouldn't have.
I guess that's why they play the games. Roll the dice and live with what happens.
Welcome to the offseason vent season. Just wait and when/if Splitter stiffs the Spurs the "what if" Scola scenarios will come pouring in.
Injuries are part of the game, but I don't know why it's so "outrageous" to point out the facts. Manu got screwed by cir stance, and his ankle injury was pretty unique in limiting him. It wasn't sprained, but there was a problem with bone.
I remember Timmy being very limited with his two broken ankles which caused him to shoot a horrible percentage. The only difference is he's a big, and Pop used the injured Timmy well forcing 25-30 shots. (Oh yeah, and Manu was playing at high level to compensate against the defenses)
Manu as a slashing SG didn't have the luxury of adjusting.
I think Pop didn't use him well as well. Manu's offense came as a shooter.
I think both Manu/Pop could have played a smarter game to compensate for his injuries, but he's never encountered this situation in the playoffs.
Living by the three and dying by the three was basically Manu's game.
Good point.2005: R. Wallace doesn't double Manu in game 5 thereby leaving Horry open for a 3. Do the Pistons win game 5 and the then the le?
Then we would have thrown Timmy under the bus, and used the ankles as an excuse.
I think we didn't utilize our injured team, to adjust better to Manu's ailment.
I mean ,what Barry came in as a spark only til GAME 4?
. What the do you know anyway.
You don't know . You don't know a ing thing.
Agreed. There is a good spurs fan in the bunch. Great post.
Agree with everything except maybe 2000 and 2002. starting with 2000, I think the spurs could of beaten the lakers but would of most likely lost to Portland, which had basically an all-star team that year including a very deep bench (choked against L.A dammit) And in 02, I think Sacramento would of beaten us and should of won the le that year anyway but again (Horry's freakish 3 pointer at the last second makes series 2-2 instead of Sac going up 3-1 with a chance to close out back home).
It's a load of garbage. Whatever happened to losing gracefully. Take a note from your team's head coach and shut the up and accept that the better team won.
Mother ing sore losers. It's pathetic how low the Spur fanbase has sunk, you are officially worse than the Sun fans of last year. They HAD a legitimate gripe IMHO.
You know, I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with admitting we lost fair and square. Injuries ARE a part of the game, no matter how critical of a factor Manu's injury was.
What annoys me beyond all is the media and Laker fans (and non-Spurs fans) refusing or unable to acknowledge that it was a critical factor.
THAT'S why I, for one, bring it up. Yes, health is a huge factor in a championship. But the thickheaded, arrogant ignorance to say that the outcome would've been exactly the same whether we had health or not (for one of our top players) is so ridiculously stupid, I don't even know what to call it.
Last edited by mikekim; 06-04-2008 at 12:31 AM.
You really should STFU and face the fact that you didn't face a fully fit Manu. Have you ever watched him play when healthy? Obviously not if you thought that was a healthy Manu.
At the same time, your team took advantage of his disability, knocked him around, and played just well enough to pull out the close games and win the series. Well done. Doesn't change the fact that that was NOT Manu out there, that was a shadow of Manu.
And I am not making excuses for anything, just explaining one of the reasons the team played so poorly. There were others.
You need to STFU and face the facts that you didn't face a healthy Andrew Bynum. You didn't face a healthy Trevor Ariza. You didn't face a healthy Kobe Bryant whose ing pinky isn't about to fall off his hand. That you didn't face a healthy Fisher who has a torn tendon in his foot. That you didn't face a healthy Gasol who is still limited by HIS ankle injury.
STFU about injuries you whiny made pussy, they are part of the game. You think anyone had ing sympathy for the Lakers in '04 when Malone went down, or what about in '89 when both Magic AND Byron Scott went down with hamstring injuries in the Finals? Every team can make the injury excuse. It's about time you owned up and faced facts, your team just wasn't good enough this year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
