Are the Spurs still contenders?

[Man In Black]

I give credit to Boston - because they are proven warriors and I respect greatly Miami's talent. That's them but that's not San Antonio.

Boston has shown they can nurse injuries all season and dig deep to play their best ball in the playoffs. SA doesn't have that in them anymore - these past 3 years showed that.

But saying what's happened in the past doesn't mean squat and why so many people latch on that kind of logic is pure folly. We're talking about this season.
Let's use Phoenix as an example. The season before last, out of the playoffs. So what does that mean for people who prognosticate with just that data?
Well, you get people saying that Phoenix still hasn't improved so they're out, or that GHill is a year older and so is Nash and they scrape to make the playoffs, or there is no way they get past their nemesis in San Antonio because the Spurs just became the first #7 seed to take out a #2 seed.
All BS. We saw PHX make the Western Conference Finals. Why did that happen? It's because you had guys that bought in to Coach Gentry and the system and they did what they did. My only though when it comes to losing to LAL is that, Phoenix relented on what they did to San Antonio, when they were playing LAL. It's as if, hey...since they finally got past the Spurs, what happens now, doesn't really matter. And they paid the price.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SEASON AND THIS SEASON ALONE.

[2Cleva]

But saying what's happened in the past doesn't mean squat and why so many people latch on that kind of logic is pure folly. We're talking about this season.
Let's use Phoenix as an example. The season before last, out of the playoffs. So what does that mean for people who prognosticate with just that data?
Well, you get people saying that Phoenix still hasn't improved so they're out, or that GHill is a year older and so is Nash and they scrape to make the playoffs, or there is no way they get past their nemesis in San Antonio because the Spurs just became the first #7 seed to take out a #2 seed.
All BS. We saw PHX make the Western Conference Finals. Why did that happen? It's because you had guys that bought in to Coach Gentry and the system and they did what they did. My only though when it comes to losing to LAL is that, Phoenix relented on what they did to San Antonio, when they were playing LAL. It's as if, hey...since they finally got past the Spurs, what happens now, doesn't really matter. And they paid the price.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SEASON AND THIS SEASON ALONE.

The past is typically indicative of the future. Those who don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it. LA winning the West is hardly a fluke - they've done it 3 years in a row. That's dominance.

OK - we'll throw it all out the window to make you feel better.

Playing the "ignore the past" game we'll go. Everyone is expected to be healthy once the season starts so lets fast forward and assume everyone is healthy enough to play come playoff time.

SA is still too small to have any edge inside on LA. Pau is a better player now than what Duncan is. Bynum is better than Splitter. LO as the 3rd big trumps McDyess. Caracter is likely last season's Blair. So LA continues to control the glass, deny more shots, and score more inside.

On the perimeter, LA has the best defenders of the bunch in Kobe, Artest, Blake, and Barnes. All are better defenders than SA's best in Hill. So that means guys like Ginobili and RJ will have serious trouble scoring. Flip side, who does SA have that can guard Kobe? Artest? No one.

Phil has a coaching edge over any opposition, except Larry Brown. Popovich is great but Phil has owned him in playoff matchups. LA has great team chemistry and execute on offense better than SA.

The lone advantage Spurs fans can honestly claim is Parker's speed. But that's never beat LA in a series by anyone, let alone LA now has a better defender in Blake. And that's if Parker keeps his dominant role on the team - Pop obviously has eyes on Hill taking over.

So "this year" why does SA beat LA? Because they played them well in a couple regular season games? C'mon now. SA can't stop LA and they can't run them out the building and outscore them. That's last year, this year, next year - whenever.

SA is a great franchise and they were a real championship contender but that sun has set.

[2Cleva]

It's really funny you want to ignore the past when your first argument was bringing up the 04 Lakers.

Only way to beat LA is to physically out-toughen them or to have more talent than them. LA is now at Boston's level of physicality so that series goes back and forth as a result. In terms of physical teams - no one else is close to those two.

Miami is trying the talent approach - however they lack size, defense, and depth.

But SA? They aren't more talented than LA nor are they tougher. Hence why they aren't a concern. A respect given to what Duncan has accomplished years ago but he's not that Duncan anymore.

[2Cleva]

It's really funny you want to ignore the past when your first argument was bringing up the 04 Lakers.

Only way to beat LA is to physically out-toughen them or to have more talent than them. LA is now at Boston's level of physicality so that series goes back and forth as a result. In terms of physical teams - no one else is close to those two.

Miami is trying the talent approach - however they lack size, defense, and depth.

But SA? They aren't more talented than LA nor are they tougher. Hence why they aren't a concern. A respect given to what Duncan has accomplished years ago but he's not that Duncan anymore.

[remingtonbo2001]

If we could add a Bruce Bowen (prime), then yes. That's the missing piece. No, not a good perimeter defender. We need a Bruce Bowen clone.

[HarlemHeat37]

2Cleva, can you please stop referring to Steve Blake as a good defender?..he was statistically one of the worst defenders in the NBA last year..he's a terrible defender, I have no idea where you got the idea that he's even decent..

Miami lacks size, but they definitely won't lack defense and depth..Spoelstra's defense finished around the top 5 last year, and now he added Lebron, a massive defensive upgrade..he's a defense-first coach, and he's already shown glimpses of success..

Their depth won't really be a problem in the playoffs IMO, where you have an 8-9 man rotation..they have built their bench enough that it won't be a problem, and fatigue won't be an issue for young guys like Lebron/Wade/Bosh..

Size is their major issue, which can be exploited by LA if Bynum is healthy..

The Lakers have a clear lack of athleticism and shooting though..they were both on display last year..they didn't really do anything to fix it..they added Blake, but there isn't a good chance that he tops Farmar's 40% 3-point shooting in the playoffs IMO..everybody else is the same..Kobe and Fisher are inconsistent outside shooters, Barnes is below average, Artest is terrible, Odom is decent for a big, but terrible overall..

The lack of athleticism was very obvious last year, where Kobe clearly struggled against athletic defenders..Artest is extremely slow and can't keep up when running through screens defensively..Shannon Brown is their only athletic wing player, and the only stand-out athlete on the team at this point..this was all on display last year..their size and talent overwhelmed the other teams, for obvious reasons, but they haven't dealt with a team with Miami's talent and athleticism..

[Man In Black]

I refer to the 04 Lakers because, like this year's Lakers, the pundits would have us believe that them winning it all is a stone cold lock. That's why I emphasize that the games need to be played. When they were played then...Detroit gave those Lakers an ass-kicking, did they not?

Okay...

SA is still too small to have any edge inside on LA. Pau is a better player now than what Duncan is.

You say Gasol is better than Duncan. I counter with statistical proof that Duncan's statistical game is almost IDENTICAL to Gasol. For someone who people observe is slowing down, when you look at the stats...they're statistically that close. Do I need to provide a link for that comparison? Do you not think that if Duncan has less to do on one end because he has better help, that he can uptick his game overall accordingly?

Bynum is better than Splitter.

I'll give you that, but by how much? And considering that Bynum is a yearly candidate for walking wounded, if he's hurt yet again, doean't that mean that Splitter can level the field based on just coming in healthy? There isn't a history of injuries for Splitter. Whereas for Bynum...his injuries as a big are only exceeded by Greg Oden. You hope that his off-season surgery will keep him upright for a full season, but you can't say that for certain. I think Bynum is a fine player, but I'm not going to give him 1st Team All-NBA just because he wears Forum Blue & Gold. He, like other Laker Centers, who've done it...has to earn it. It won't be bestowed upon him like you guys think it already is.

LO as the 3rd big trumps McDyess.

He does, but again by how much? Is it because he has deft ball handling skills? Or is it because he can be counted on to shoot a high percentage and consistently score in the high teens over and over again? FALSE. You mean when I listen to LA Radio and they talk about how Odom goes into a continuous funk, that the media guys are just making up? I live out here in So Cal. I can tell you that there are many people who wish Lamar could do more than just handle the ball well and play kissy face with the fat Kardashian. That he could be a consistent threat but you know that he isn't. We don't expect McDyess to do anything other than defend hard, get around 8 rebounds per and hit a 15-17 foot jumper to the tune of 6-8 points a game. So go ahead, say that Odom trumps McDyess. Can he be counted on to do it every time, or maybe just 1 out of every 3 games or so? Let's see out of 23 games played in the playoffs last season, Odom scored less than double figures 13 times. That means he scored less than 10 points more often that he scored more than 10 points.

Against the Celtics, in a 7 game Finals series, he really stepped up and scored the following-5, 3, 12, 10, 8, 8, and in a game 7...7 points. So, really is his advantage as great as you say it is?

Caracter is likely last season's Blair. So LA continues to control the glass, deny more shots, and score more inside.

On what basis is it that you can make this statement? Caracter's college scoring and rebound stat averages are as follows:
10.2 PPG
5.5 RPG
DeJuan Blair's college scoring and rebound stat averages are as follows:
13.7 PPG
10.7 RPG
If you tell me that Caracter is faster- I give you agility drill times and 3/4 Court Sprint times for both:
DC: 12.78 ; 3.61
DB: 11.50 ; 3.45

I'll give you that Caracter is taller at 6'9 to 6'7 if you give me the fact that Blair jumps higher, has a longer wingspan and lays claim to the le best offensive rebounder in college statistically for the last 8 years. Plus he's got 1 year already in the NBA, finished All-Rookie, should've outright won the Rookie Challenge MVP and admit it....Caracter is outgunned.

On the perimeter, LA has the best defenders of the bunch in Kobe, Artest, Blake, and Barnes.

I'll give you roaming Kobe, his perimeter position defense isn't as good as you claim it to be, he's solid at roaming so I'll give you that. Artest, isn't as good as he used to be and quicker player can take advantage of him in some situations but he's a good defender. Blake? Seriously? Tell me why- Point out what makes him worthy of being called one of the best defenders of the bunch. When he was wearing a Denver uniform, I could see times when opposing guards would be licking their chops when they see him come out to cover. Let's be real and call him barely competent. The want is there, but the skill is not. Barnes is a thug. At times, he can be kind of Bowen lite, but his game comes with a short fuse. He'd rather jawjack than persevere through a tough match-up. That's why he gets T'd up often.

All are better defenders than SA's best in Hill.

So why Blake again? Point out why. Test the hypothesis. Besides, you're wrong that SA's best defender is Hill. In my mind, it's Ginobili that's the best but you can't have him go Sidney Moncrief all the time because to do so would mean you would only have him at his level best for 20 minutes top. So Pop has to pick and choose his battles. GHill has the want, he's got all kinds of athletic ability and a freakish wingspan. Plus he's got youth but he's not the best. It just seems that way because most media outlets regurgitate how good a defender Pop says he's become.

So that means guys like Ginobili and RJ will have serious trouble scoring. Flip side, who does SA have that can guard Kobe? Artest? No one.

Truthfully-Who has anyone that can guard Kobe? Tony Allen, is that guy on any All-NBA D teams? He did an admirable job, but really, if Bean is on his game, he's going to score. And that's fine. The beauty of Bowen was that he forced Bean to think real hard about what to do next. Should Bean play team and spread the wealth OR, should he just try to go for 35 and show the world how awesome he is against Bowen? See...the deal is, he'd get his 35...but then no one would really talk about how it took 30-33 shots to get that 35. I don't expect any defender the Spurs have to hold Bean to 1 point per shot, but if we could get say...30 points on 25 shots or 1.2 points per shot, then the Spurs are doing that okay. If it's a by committee defensive job that does it. That'd be fine. The sticky point will be selling it to the refs so that when it most counts, the physicality is allowed. Like when Boston does it. RJ needs to buy in. I await to see how his 2nd full season with a training camp will affect his mindset. If he stays in a funk, then that's one I'd concede to you. But it's gotta be played out to the end to earn a letter grade.

Phil has a coaching edge over any opposition, except Larry Brown. Popovich is great but Phil has owned him in playoff matchups. LA has great team chemistry and execute on offense better than SA.

Curious, why did you say Larry Brown? Pop's a Brown disciple. Owes his career to Larry, and is close enough to Larry to be Best Man at Larry's wedding. So why did you say Larry Brown? And knowing that Pop is THE BEST DISCIPLE Brown has ever had, doesn't that give Pop enough ammo to form a team, infuse a style of play, and then let the chips fall where they may? I never said Pop was better than Phil, I only said that he's to a point where he's gained as much respect as PJax. If PJax is the best coach in the L with multiple les, is it a stretch for me to say that Pop is the 2nd best coach in the L with multiple les? No, it's not. When Mike D'Antoni coached he Suns to a series win against the LAL down 3-1 with PJax at the helm, does that mean that Mike D'Antoni is a better coach than Phil? No, it just meant that his team played better, harder, and willed their way to a 7 game series and eliminated a Kobe and Phil-led team. David won that time.

The lone advantage Spurs fans can honestly claim is Parker's speed. But that's never beat LA in a series by anyone, let alone LA now has a better defender in Blake.

Should've been enough in 04 but an unusual cir stance negated that. The possibility existed yet again in 08, but a controversial no-call swung the favor to LA and that was that. Again, don't tell me Blake is a better defender. Prove that he is. Tell us why. Then back it up. You have to or otherwise we'll just call BS.

And that's if Parker keeps his dominant role on the team - Pop obviously has eyes on Hill taking over.

It's the bolded part that gets me. Do you read The New York Daily News or The New York Post? What makes it obvious? Is it the part where RC says that they want TP here?

“The speculation on Tony is placed outside of our organization and not internally,” said Buford, who said he wouldn’t have to even answer questions about Parker’s future had he not had injuries and that the Spurs “would be crazy not to want a player like (Parker) in our program for a long time.”

Or is the fact that Big City Media only talks rumors but never talks about how TP himself said the following:

"Again, I want to make it clear: I want to stay in San Antonio," Parker said Wednesday, according to the Express-News.

Or is it this:

Parker remains optimistic that he and the Spurs will reach an agreement on a contract extension this fall, according to the report.
"I'm happy in San Antonio," Parker said, according to the report. "My wife and I are very happy. I built my home base here, so why wouldn't I want to be here?"

So "this year" why does SA beat LA? Because they played them well in a couple regular season games? C'mon now. SA can't stop LA and they can't run them out the building and outscore them. That's last year, this year, next year - whenever.

SA is a great franchise and they were a real championship contender but that sun has set.

This remains to be seen, as I've said...These games need to be played. There will be no real answers until the year is played out. Anything more than that is just speculation. Besides, you have now been tasked with forming a hypothesis that proves why Steve Blake(r) is all of a sudden, in consideration for the ALL-NBA D Team.

[2Cleva]

2Cleva, can you please stop referring to Steve Blake as a good defender?..he was statistically one of the worst defenders in the NBA last year..he's a terrible defender, I have no idea where you got the idea that he's even decent..

He's better than Fisher. That's all LA needs.

Miami lacks size, but they definitely won't lack defense and depth..Spoelstra's defense finished around the top 5 last year, and now he added Lebron, a massive defensive upgrade..he's a defense-first coach, and he's already shown glimpses of success..

They lack quality depth. Their best shotblocker now is in Boston. LeBron is great at steals and blocks weakside but not man-to-man defense regularly. Also Miami played at a slow tempo last year - which helps D stats. The D will be good though, weak at protecting the basket though - especially from the bigs. They will need Wade and LeBron helping in the post alot - which frees up shooters.

Their depth won't really be a problem in the playoffs IMO, where you have an 8-9 man rotation..they have built their bench enough that it won't be a problem, and fatigue won't be an issue for young guys like Lebron/Wade/Bosh..

Agreed that depth isn't as important then. Key is whether they get wore down in the season.

Size is their major issue, which can be exploited by LA if Bynum is healthy..

Even with just Pau and LO - LA will beat up Miami inside but yeah - if Drew is healthy, Miami will get ripped a new one.

The Lakers have a clear lack of athleticism and shooting though..they were both on display last year..they didn't really do anything to fix it..they added Blake, but there isn't a good chance that he tops Farmar's 40% 3-point shooting in the playoffs IMO..everybody else is the same..Kobe and Fisher are inconsistent outside shooters, Barnes is below average, Artest is terrible, Odom is decent for a big, but terrible overall..

LA is extremely athletic for their bigs, agree less than ideal on the perimeter - primarily due to age. Brown, Barnes and Ebanks is for that. But Farmar didn't help at all last playoffs. But Blake is around 40 for his career and we all know what Fisher can do. And do you really want to test Kobe? Play off any of them and they can kill you - ask Boston about leaving Artest open.

The lack of athleticism was very obvious last year, where Kobe clearly struggled against athletic defenders..Artest is extremely slow and can't keep up when running through screens defensively..Shannon Brown is their only athletic wing player, and the only stand-out athlete on the team at this point..this was all on display last year..their size and talent overwhelmed the other teams, for obvious reasons, but they haven't dealt with a team with Miami's talent and athleticism..

LA however can play physical on the perimeter thanks to the respect their defenders get and the shotblocking frontline behind them. They will force Wade and LeBron to the help. It will be almost like the 2004 Pistons or old school Spurs - since all of them play physical defense, the refs let it all go. Its not like Sasha when he tries to be tough - foul on him. Kobe, Fisher, Blake, Artest, and Barnes reputation will give them a lot of leeway.

[2Cleva]

MIB - Yahoo and Sporting News combined for an NBA preview I picked up yesterday - it addresses this exactly - I'll scan and post it sometime this weekend.

I refer to the 04 Lakers because, like this year's Lakers, the pundits would have us believe that them winning it all is a stone cold lock. That's why I emphasize that the games need to be played. When they were played then...Detroit gave those Lakers an ass-kicking, did they not?

Let me quote the aforementioned article

So the question becomes: What will it take to knock off the Lakers? First and foremost, it will take toughness, followed closely by length, a dedication to defense, and at least one player who can harass Bryant into working harder than he would like to find his points. The last two teams to beat the Lakers in the Finals -- the 2003-04 Detroit Pistons and the 2007-08 Celtics -- had all of those attributes, as did the 2009-10 Celtics, who lost to LA in 7 games...

The formula is clear and until a WC team comes with that complete package - I'm not worried. Closest would be Denver but they are so screwed up mentally, chemistry, and health-wise - they take themselves out of the picture.

SA doesn't have any of those things.

Until they do, they aren't true contenders.

[Ginobili2Duncan]

In order for the Spurs to contend this year, they are going to have to improve the defense. In their championship years, the Spurs' opponents shot below 45%. Against the 2004 Spurs, oppenents shot only 41% against them. These Spurs will no longer keep their opponents without a field goal for 6 min stretches, but they have more firepower so they will not have to for every game. But,for the Spurs to advance to the finals, they should hold their opponents to around 43% or 44%

[DPG21920]

Look, the Spurs will be a very good team. I am fully expecting TP to have a monster year which will help tremendously. Even though Tiago might struggle, his size will really help. I am excited about the young guys the Spurs have.

But imho, when you are talking about true contenders, you have to look at one thing: Does the team need bad stuff to happen to other teams in order to have a chance? The true contenders do not. True contenders need a few things to go right for their team, but they do not have to rely on bad things happening to other teams.

The Spurs, as things seemingly stand today, need things to go really right for them along with things going really wrong for other teams in their way (LA, MIA, BOS, ORL, ...). That is why I don't see them as a true contender. Could things change? Sure. It would just be really, really surprising based on the off-season.

[Man In Black]

He's better than Fisher. That's all LA needs.

So it is because Blake wears P & G that he is now, all of a sudden, a solid defender? You need to take his name off the list as one of LA's best defenders.

MIB - Yahoo and Sporting News combined for an NBA preview I picked up yesterday - it addresses this exactly - I'll scan and post it sometime this weekend.

I await the scan, I'm sure it'll be a good read, and depending upon who wrote it, I migh question their basis for what they've written for both teams. Outside of Johnny Ludden, the rest of the writers might be biased in so many ways.

SA doesn't have any of those things.

Until they do, they aren't true contenders.

What you're saying is that, seemingly...SA doesn't have any of those things. They have players with that potential.
Let's break out your article quotes:

So the question becomes: What will it take to knock off the Lakers? First and foremost, it will take toughness, followed closely by length, a dedication to defense, and at least one player who can harass Bryant into working harder than he would like to find his points. The last two teams to beat the Lakers in the Finals -- the 2003-04 Detroit Pistons and the 2007-08 Celtics -- had all of those attributes, as did the 2009-10 Celtics, who lost to LA in 7 games...

Toughness? This is Pop and he'll implore for toughness and the team, outside of Bonner(he's had 2 chances now to come up big when needed most), will respond accordingly. The bulk of the team has had to deal with adversity in 1 form or another. Even the rookie, James Anderson. And in some form, they've responded splendidly. IS it enough? I'm not sure, it could be but reality is, it will take some time to prove if it's enough. That's Theory and Practice at work. There is nothing that I would like to see than a classic series where both teams are at full strength and it goes 7 and a clutch basket is needed for the W. I hope it's Silver & Black, of course, that gets it.

[2Cleva]

Look, the Spurs will be a very good team. I am fully expecting TP to have a monster year which will help tremendously. Even though Tiago might struggle, his size will really help. I am excited about the young guys the Spurs have.

But imho, when you are talking about true contenders, you have to look at one thing: Does the team need bad stuff to happen to other teams in order to have a chance? The true contenders do not. True contenders need a few things to go right for their team, but they do not have to rely on bad things happening to other teams.

The Spurs, as things seemingly stand today, need things to go really right for them along with things going really wrong for other teams in their way (LA, MIA, BOS, ORL, ...). That is why I don't see them as a true contender. Could things change? Sure. It would just be really, really surprising based on the off-season.

This.


MIB - SA may be mentally tough but so is Utah. A team has to be physically tough - strong, physical, willing to bloody the opponents nose for 48 minutes and fight tooth and nail on every possession to beat LA. Spurs aren't even close.

[dunkman]

The 10-11 Spurs are finally solid at every position. They look very much as the 02-03 Spurs.

The Lakers had no shot at passing the Spurs in '08 but the addition of Gasol changed that team from day 1.

In the same way, the Spurs improved a lot the past season and this season that trend continues. Duncan is an 20/10 player. Manu played at super-star level before the broken nose made him lose some confidence. Parker has super-star capability too, if he's healthy. Splitter has similar to Gasol potential. Hill is already playing at near sixth man of the year level in his second year. Jefferson is near all-star talent, Blair is capable of 20/20's, Dice is a good player and those players will be in their second year with the Spurs. Anderson and Neal are capable players too.

The Spurs can put Duncan / Splitter / Blair and Dice on Gasol / Bynum / Odom, the Lakers won't have advantages there. Manu / Jefferson / Hill / Anderson are going to make Kobe work for his points and guard Artest. Parker / Hill / Neal are superior to Fisher/Blake. The Lakers can't introduce Barnes as they had Ariza to guard Parker, because they can't switch Fisher to guard Jefferson as they did with Bowen.

Phil has 11 les which deserves respect. But it's foolish to think that Pop after 4 le runs doesn't know how to have the things done. The '02-03 le passed trough the Lakers that were 99% favorites and superior in talent. Many thought that the Spurs had no chance, no team in the NBA could stop Shaq and Kobe. But the reality was other.

[FilSpursFan]

Are the Spurs still contenders?

Of course! Every season they tried to...

[dunkman]

This.


MIB - SA may be mentally tough but so is Utah. A team has to be physically tough - strong, physical, willing to bloody the opponents nose for 48 minutes and fight tooth and nail on every possession to beat LA. Spurs aren't even close.

The Lakers are obviously trying to be tough, but so far, that would be only Artest, Fisher, Kobe and Barnes. Bynum plays hard but he's always injured, being a very young man. Gasol and Odom being bigs, would rather avoid contact. Blake, Sasha and Walton are the an hesis of tough.

In the Spurs, tough are: Dice, Blair, Jefferson, Duncan, Parker and Hill. Manu plays hard but is sometimes injured. Of the rookies, Anderson is known to be tough, Splitter is known to be very physical too.

[quentin_compson]

Jefferson tough? Richard Jefferson??

[DaDakota]

As a Rockets fan, from my perspective you guys remind me of the post championship teams with Dream.

We had a good team, and were in the mix, but not a favorite.

And it all came down to health.

DD

[dunkman]

Jefferson tough? Richard Jefferson??

If we talk about Jefferson the player, he can guard physical SF's effectively without being constantly posted up too near the basket. He goes to the line very often. He's average rebounder. His defense isn't bad either. To do something like that, a player must have contact and take hard fouls, which soft players avoid or if don't, tend to injure and miss too many games.

As a Rockets fan, from my perspective you guys remind me of the post championship teams with Dream.

We had a good team, and were in the mix, but not a favorite.

And it all came down to health.

DD

I think that what makes different the Spurs is that Hakeem, Barkley and Pippen were past their primes. While Duncan can't dominate games as before and Manu tends to be injured more frequently, Parker and Jefferson are efficient players in their prime that could take the offensive load if needed.

The Spurs also have the infusion of many young players like Hill, Blair, Splitter and probably Anderson. One example of this is Hill's performance against the Mavs.

[Muser]

Caracter is likely last season's Blair

[2Cleva]

Ya'll can't handle the truth.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162251

[ohmwrecker]

Caracter is likely last season's Blair

He will be lucky to make the squad.

[ohmwrecker]

Again, I was saying you dismiss people's arguments because they are opinion, while using only opinion yourself. I know we all use opinion, but some opinions are based on logic and facts. Some are not. Just because we all use opinion, does not mean all opinion is weighted the same.

I wanted to address your response in a more timely manner, but, honestly, I grew weary of the argument. It's not a discussion about whether or not the Spurs should be considered contenders or not anymore. It is really about your misinterpretation of the intent of my comments. In my opinion, the Spurs are legit contenders. I gave the reasons to back up my opinion and having a semantic argument over the validity of those reasons does not interest me.
If you want to address a specific, topic related issue, I will be glad to discuss that with you, I will gladly answer you, but I am not interested in clarifying what are obviously, to anyone else, my opinions. I did not dismiss anyone, I merely disagreed.

[DPG21920]

Holy late reply! That must have been a good j, dude. Let's just get the season here.

[Muser]

Blairs rebounding s on caracters rebounding.