Parker: "(Hill) is going to play."

[TD 21]

I'm concerned about Hill's lateral quickness, or lack thereof. The Spurs need him to defend Terry, Barea and (though he may play sparingly) Beaubois. He also (presumably) keeps Mason out of the rotation.

More than anything, this team needs to play with confidence. "He needs to play"? Good as he is, he's their fourth best player and if he misses game one, barring him making it worse, he's probably not missing another game. Parker makes it sound like they can't do without him for even a game. They can't have that mentality. They need to not only think that they can beat this team, but have the mindset that they're better than them. I'd take the Spurs best over the Mavs best, but the Mavs are a more confident team. I don't know what it is with this team, but they just never sound all that confident. Like this is some monumental task. I'm not taking the Mavs lightly, but this wouldn't even be an upset if the Spurs won. The Spurs have this defeatist, "we can maybe have a chance if everything goes right" at ude. They're better than that, but if they don't believe it, it won't matter.

[stretch]

Fixed.

cool story bro tbh

[Whisky Dog]

If Parker comes off the bench and plays hard to contribute and win then I take back the bad things I said about him.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

If Parker comes off the bench and plays hard to contribute and win then I take back the bad things I said about him.

Yeah, cuz it's not like he's played hard to contribute to 3 Spurs les or anything

[Death In June]

It'd be nice if they reported the MRI results anyway. I can understand Pop wanting to play it close to the vest, but how much of an advantage is that really?

[jjktkk]

It'd be nice if they reported the MRI results anyway. I can understand Pop wanting to play it close to the vest, but how much of an advantage is that really?

Why let anyone know? Maybe Hill's ankle is a problem. No need to let the mavs, or the media know more than they need to.

[Whisky Dog]

Yeah, cuz it's not like he's played hard to contribute to 3 Spurs les or anything

The only bad things I said about him are that he's becoming a Hollywood diva and that he would never take coming off the bench without pouting. Obviously that has nothing to do with 3 les or 2003 to 2009. I'm talking right now, because this is the first time he's been asked to come off the bench. If he does it no questions asked then I retract that assessment of him. I know it's hard to understand for you but try to keep up.

[Interrohater]

I'm concerned about Hill's lateral quickness, or lack thereof. The Spurs need him to defend Terry, Barea and (though he may play sparingly) Beaubois. He also (presumably) keeps Mason out of the rotation.

More than anything, this team needs to play with confidence. "He needs to play"? Good as he is, he's their fourth best player and if he misses game one, barring him making it worse, he's probably not missing another game. Parker makes it sound like they can't do without him for even a game. They can't have that mentality. They need to not only think that they can beat this team, but have the mindset that they're better than them. I'd take the Spurs best over the Mavs best, but the Mavs are a more confident team. I don't know what it is with this team, but they just never sound all that confident. Like this is some monumental task. I'm not taking the Mavs lightly, but this wouldn't even be an upset if the Spurs won. The Spurs have this defeatist, "we can maybe have a chance if everything goes right" at ude. They're better than that, but if they don't believe it, it won't matter.

I totally disagree with this entire statement. The Spurs don't have a defeatist at ude, they are just not in the business of making bulletin-board material. Also, Tony Parker's comments may have been taken way out of context. Maybe he said that with a smile, jokingly, giving Hill a hard time.

Don't mistake confidence for arrogance. The Spurs can be confident in their team without issuing challenges to their opponent.

[Interrohater]

As a matter of fact, I just watched the Tony Parker interview and I was right on the money. He said it in a joking manner.

[Muser]

The only bad things I said about him are that he's becoming a Hollywood diva and that he would never take coming off the bench without pouting. Obviously that has nothing to do with 3 les or 2003 to 2009. I'm talking right now, because this is the first time he's been asked to come off the bench. If he does it no questions asked then I retract that assessment of him. I know it's hard to understand for you but try to keep up.

He said he has no problem with it.

[Tito_Trinidad]

no problem, we have Temple anyways.

[G-Dawgg]

Tony Parker: "He needs to play. (because he's become our new floor general and I don't bring to the table the things that he does)"

[Whisky Dog]

He said he has no problem with it.

After a few games of it we'll have an idea if he was full of or not.

Always look at actions, not words.

[jag]

The only bad things I said about him are that he's becoming a Hollywood diva...

I love seeing people pull this outa thin air.

"he's married to an actress, so HE is becoming a Hollywood diva.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

The only bad things I said about him are that he's becoming a Hollywood diva and that he would never take coming off the bench without pouting. Obviously that has nothing to do with 3 les or 2003 to 2009. I'm talking right now, because this is the first time he's been asked to come off the bench. If he does it no questions asked then I retract that assessment of him. I know it's hard to understand for you but try to keep up.

How the heck do you think he's becoming a "Hollywood diva"? Sure he's married to Eva Longoria. And? He's continued to produce without complaint, even in the face of criticism, both deserved and not. The only reason to be surprised WHEN Parker accepts whatever role Pop assigns him without complaint is when you've unfairly categorized him in the first place. To those of us who can objectively follow the game and evaluate a player based on at ude and past performance, it'll just be another example of why Parker really is a perfect fit for San Antonio.

Try to keep up with that, if you will.

[TD 21]

I totally disagree with this entire statement. The Spurs don't have a defeatist at ude, they are just not in the business of making bulletin-board material. Also, Tony Parker's comments may have been taken way out of context. Maybe he said that with a smile, jokingly, giving Hill a hard time.

Don't mistake confidence for arrogance. The Spurs can be confident in their team without issuing challenges to their opponent.

Watch for nuances when they speak. The body language, the tone. Parker said "he (Hill) better play", then flashed a quick smile that I interpreted like this: If he doesn't play, even for a game, we're in trouble. You can't have that mindset. We all know Hill's importance, but at the end of the day he's their fourth best player. They should be able to get through a game without him.

The Spurs used to be confident, but I haven't seen it since the '08 playoffs. Whenever they're about to face a good team or a stretch of tough games, it's like they're just hoping they can keep it compe ive and have virtually everything go right for them to win. The margin for error shouldn't be that razor thin with this amount of talent. They should have the mentality that they're better than the Mavs and I just don't sense that. I think they think this is winnable, but again, in a if-almost-everything-goes right kind of way.