Reply With Quote
The spurs would not have beaten Dallas, Lakers or OKC and we know what happend with memphis.
Doesn't matter how they looked in the season, if these teams played each other in the playoffs both teams are going balls to the wall. I think given all the same cir stances the Spurs would lose due to Ginobili not being 100%. We're not going anywhere if that dude isn't completely healthy. Now, if both teams were completely healthy on top of their games, like they were early in the season...it's a wash imo.
The spurs would not have beaten Dallas, Lakers or OKC and we know what happend with memphis.
What did you expect manu to average 30 points a game? he wasn't going to play much better than what he did in the playoffs.
The spurs were a flawed team as constructed and that falls on management not any one player or injury.
And ass hurt Laker fans
OMG what a sick burn
Hey bud.
Uh oh, why the long face? Accidentally got another 12 pack of Pepsi? Getting kicked out of the house again?
It's alright, I've got plenty of room for both you and master tonight
It would have been 50/50. I still feel like the Spurs are the better team, but they wouldn't have met until the Conference Finals. By that point, the Mavs confidence was at an all-time high. After years of playoff failures, it's difficult to see them being denied one round shy of the Finals. However, I feel like both teams could return largely the same rosters next season and the Spurs would probably win.
People say "the Spurs are a flawed team", which is true. But the problems the Grizzlies caused the Spurs, the Mavs are incapable of causing. It's no different than why the Spurs always used to beat the Suns. Sure, the Suns were flawed, but their flaws were only exposed because the Spurs were perfectly suited to exposing them.
The thing the Spurs struggled with most all season was big, bruising, skilled post players. The Grizzlies just so happened to have two, something no other team has. On sheer mass alone, the Spurs physically couldn't guard them.
The Spurs still should have beaten them. But that's the thing about the playoffs. Generally, you can't go into them playing your worst ball of the season. And you definitely can't have your two best players not at 100%, particularly when you're a non tax paying team.
You'd think Spur fans would've crashed back down to reality after the First-round beatdown, but apparently not.
The Mavs lost to the Spurs in the 1st round last season. They added Chandler and Stojakovic and subtracted Butler and Beaubois from the rotation and they're in the Finals. The '09 Suns didn't make the playoffs. They added Frye in the off season and made the Conference Finals in '10. It's not out of the question that the Spurs could make one move, for a non star and go on a deep playoff run next season. The playoffs are largely about match-ups and peaking at the right time.
He more or less had his way with one of the better defenders in the league with one arm. His jumper was off from the perimeter but he still put up more than his season averages. It's only logical to expect better play from him if he his healthy.
No doubt! I believe we would've beaten okc and dallas, and although memphis lost to okc, they were an even worse matchup for dallas than they were for us.
Like you did any better, beating a beatup and injured hornets team who gave you all you could handle and then being swept by the choke-city mavs.
The difference is Laker fans don't have delusions of grandeur about the situation. They're not playing the "what-if" game like some (not all) spurfans are doing. Your team was fool's gold all year and you still haven't accepted that fact, despite getting your pushed in by an 8th seed.
kidd is slower than conley. speed is the only advantage parker has over most PG in the nba. kidd wouldnt be able to keep up with tp the whole game. barea is another story.
lol the playoffs are about matchups. just because we got our ass handed to us by memphis it doesnt mean dallas would have done the same. dallas doesnt have 2 big bodys banging in the post. it would be an amazing 7 game series tho.
Dallas would have won
With bonner and RJ getting regular minutes, Pop going small and no Tiago as usual it would be Mavs in 4-5 games.
I think the only teams the Spurs would have beaten were New Orleans (for sure) and probably Denver.
Last season basically this same Spurs team (minus Neal and Splitter) beat basically this same Mavs team (minus Chandler and plus Butler). Why are people saying that the Spurs would lose easily? Memphis presented a matchup problem that the Mavs do not. I say it's a 50/50 series.
Many still not accepting the Spurs were just not very good when matched up with the top teams in the league. The spurs fattened up on the weak teams in the league and caught many schedule breaks early in the season with playing teams missing players. In the 2nd half that began to turn when the spurs had to deal with the injury to Duncan and teams starting to play better gearing up for the playoffs.
One look at the roster and you should have known this spurs team was not a championship contender. They brought back the same core team that got swept by Phoenix.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
