Even had the spurs won the .4 second game there is no guarantee they take that series. They went on to lose game 6 so they would have had to win a game 7 in LA.
OK..let me try this again..you don't seem to be listening to me. Ball screen dude..ball screen. Yes, your defense probably would have swarmed..but with only 1.3 seconds, they wouldn't have had time to get to a player who had just gotten open with a ball screen. And once more, read closely, Bonner would not have taken a game winning shot. He is not clutch in any way, shape, or form. He was the last guy on the court we would have given the ball to, except we needed a quick shot. We would have gotten a MUCH better shot off than that in 1.3 seconds..period. I know this team, and I know the game...trust me.Pretty much. With the exception of a major defensive lapse we would not have allowed a throw into the interior or an even remotely open look by one of your top players. Look at every single last second play there has ever been, even against poor defensive teams. The ball is passed to somebody way out past the 3 pt line, the defenders close and contest, and the shooter misses it probably 90% of the time. There is no play that can get somebody open in that time outside of a defense meltdown, and if you're argument rests on that or the liklihood of a stupid foul or even a ref calling a foul in that siutation then it's dead in the water.
My rproblem with your argument is that you're assuming you would have gotten a high percentage shot with something as simple as a ball fake or a dribble. If basketball were that easy teams would score 300 points a game. I'm not saying that extra second doesn't make a difference, but what I'm saying is that you wouldn't have gotten a better shot than what you did. The only reason that shot was that open is that we didn't expect Bonner to be the recipient of the pass. Had Mason or Parker or anybody else gotten the ball our defense would have swarmed.
And don't drop the, "I played college ball, and trust me..." junk. That means absolutely nothing. And for someone who played college ball you sure have a pretty simple view of how to get an open shot or the value of high percentage looks versus an impossible shot by a "clutch" shooter.
One more thing, I brought up the Roy thing because Bonner's shot physically took more than .4 seconds. It was closer to .6 or so.
Sorry for long post
Dude..seriously? And Bonner? Come on man..you can't call Gooden erratic and praise Bonner..that's ridiculous. Even in Gooden's "pathetic" offense, he still scored 9 points, 2 more than Bonner. Bonner has had nights where he plays for 30 minutes, gets no points and one rebound. Come on Eric...you're better than that. Gooden is better than Bonner..you know it, I know it. When was the last time Bonner got 20 points a game for 3 games in a row? The guy isn't going to score 20 every game...but scoring below 20 doesn't mean he's erratic, it means he's human. But at the same time, he IS better than Bonner, period.
Game 7 would've been in San Antonio dumbass.
The reason the guy scores so much is because hes a goddamn ballhog.
Hes the reincarnation of Ron Mercer its pathetic.
I watched the game where Gooden was hustling for rebounds tipping them out and busting his ass.
Whatever though, keep up the Gooden hate, I'm shocked theres no, "Why is Michael Finley even in uniform" threads.
Dude...come on...you're kidding, right? Ballhog? Dude..he's the best scoring option we have off our bench right now. Pop WANTS him to shoot the ball. That's why we brought him in here. You didn't think we brought him in for his fantastic defensive ability, did you? (though he's still better at D than Bonner). I like Bonner, don't get me wrong...but Gooden is much better..you've GOT to know that.
Drew Gooden might be a black hole on offense, but at least he can actually put the ball in the hole. I don't mind letting him try to create his own offense, especially during those periods where everybody is hovering around the perimeter and tossing up bricks.
Oh, I forgot that a ball screen is the most effective play in all of basketball. If only someone could invent some sort of defensive switch. Where like, the defender who is guarding the screener switches to teh person who receives the ball off the screen. They could call it something weird like, I don't know, a rotation.
Once again, it would have been contested, and off balance. He wouldn't even be able to shoot the ball, he would be throwing it at the basket. Sure you may have gotten a shot for a clutch shooter, but if you expect any player to make a difficult shot like that at any remotely high percentage or if you expect a ball screen to give him all the space in teh world you're delusional.
And don't say Matt Bonner's the only one that can get taht shot off. He didn't get it off fast enough any ways. I said this earlier, that shot took closer to .5 or .6 sec.
Would not say dumbass, just lazy. I didn't bother to check out where game 7 was. Still I did not like the spur chances in a game 7 as they just folded in game 6 after the tough loss. That was not a championship makeup team, the way they could not battle back to win game 6.
You're just stupid. We lost game 6 at home against the Pistons in the NBA Finals a year later, and won game 7 afterwards...
A ball screen is different when it comes when the ball is passed in from the sidelines. You can do a hidden backscreen which can confuse the defense. I've seen it done many times to where the shooter is wide open. You tell me that we wouldn't have enough time to get a better shot, but you really think you'd have enough time to find the screen and switch, or even rotate the defense before a shot gets off? Please dude..you're wrong. Just give it up.
I thought that long Mason 3pt to tie the game was pretty clutch. well done Mason. As for the Kings being screwed...honestly it sucks to be the team getting for something they couldnt control, but we definitely will take it. And come on, i know this isnt the point, but what were the Kings really getting screwed out of? not clinching the worst record....which they did. They were just out there playing ball as spoiler and we escaped barely. Now, if anything people should be talking and making lists of all the rules that need to be changed in the offseason...including this one.
yes. A LIST OF RULES THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED IN THE OFF-SEASON could be a nice thread to start. Im just too lazy to start it. Go SPURS!
I picked the spurs over the Pistons in that series. I thought the spurs would take game 7.
Anyways different years, different teams. So stupid you to even draw a comparison between two different series in different years between different teams.
Do me a favor. Look up all games that come down to a shot with about 1.5 seconds left where the shot could tie or win the game and tell me how often they succeed. I guarentee it's not better than 30%.
The shot taht Bonner got he will make more than 30% of the time, even if he's not clutch. So you're arguing that you wish you could replay it to likely get a lower percentage shot. You're grasping at straws.
Also all a rotation is is two players switiching when there's been a screen. It's not that difficult.
The point is, you can't argue that team didn't 'have it' because they lost a game 6. If not for that .4 shot, that team would have been up 3-2 with home court for game 7, which would have given them a considerable margin to work with. It's not that much different than Game 4 of the WCF last year. If Barry gets that call and we win the game, the series goes back to zero and it's a 3 game series. Does it guarantee anything? No. But it does give you a margin of error in case the next game is not your best.
Kings fans should be thank us...more losses increases their Lotto chances
The point is that many just assume the spurs would win that series if they take the .4 game. Not happening with that team in that year.
Again you continue to compare different teams in different years. The spurs were not beatiung the Lakers last year if Barry gets the call or not. The lakers were the better team and have proven it on the court against the spurs winning 6 out of the last 8 times they have played and being the top seed the last two years.
Getting Gasol for nothing put them over the top.
Hard for some here to accept but the lakers are the better team now.
A team with championship heart takes games 6 and games 7 after dropping the .4 game.
The spurs could not even get game 6. That team did not have the championship makeup to be a champion.
ty call but who gives a . Means little. Kings, it only helps with the ping pong balls. Won't help Spews get that second seed so they will be bounced in 1st round. Nothing to see here.
They didn't fold up at all, they had the lead at halftime and the Lakers pulled away a bit in the 4th quarter.
Try again dumbass.
The fallacy in your argument is assuming that the Spurs don't win the series if they win that game. It would actually have been a repeat of the '03 series against LA, where the bottom came off in LA when the pressure mounted for them. That LA team was not that good. They got Payton at the point and Malone ended up injured. They eventually lost to pretty much the same Pistons team we beat a year later in the Finals.
The reality is that the makeup of the Spurs has changed relatively little over the years because it's always been about Duncan and then everyone else. To say that Duncan had heart one season, but not the other is pretty re ed.
I'm not so sure about that. Those that remember the actual games, recall the Spurs dominating the Lakers in the first half of the first game, taking a 20 point lead until the legs got tired. Game 3 was a very solid victory and Game 4 was compe ive to the end. Again, we were one call away from making it a 3 game series shootout.
Getting Gasol made them contenders again. You need to actually win a championship to say they're over the top.
Let us not forget the mugging of Brent Barry by D-Fish last year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
