Reply With Quote
Gregg Popovich for one, unless you don't believe Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy as a source. Also wondering how you missed game 4, since that's when it was discussed.
I don't know what per game minutes he's logging, but Fisher skews the numbers and IMO he's not significant to their team. Remove him then what do you have? Take it a step further and compare each team's big three Duncan (29), Parker (21) and Ginobili (21) to Durant (5), Westbrook (5) and Harden (5). That's 71 to 15! Duncan by himself nearly doubles their total experience.
Gregg Popovich for one, unless you don't believe Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy as a source. Also wondering how you missed game 4, since that's when it was discussed.
This talk is really ing stupid. If the Spurs are not focused, they will lose.
The 2001 Lakers didn't lose until Game 1 of the Finals. That's 11 straight games in the playoffs (5 game series 1st round). Didn't stop them.
Fact is this, the Spurs are not only chasing a le, they're chasing history here. This run is one of the greatest in history, but the team knows that it means nothing unless they win the le. That's their focus. If the team stays on this tear, they're in compe ion with some of the greatest teams ever.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...pse-chroniclesOn Saturday, they eviscerated the Clippers by scoring 24 straight points in the third quarter, bringing back memories of the '86 Celtics dropping 25 straight against the Hawks in the Eastern Conference Semifinals. The biggest difference: The Spurs did it on the road. The biggest similarity: Everything else.2
2.The Spurs started taking off about six weeks ago, thanks to Kawhi Leonard's continued improvement and R.C. Buford's savvy acquisitions of Boris Diaw and Stephen Jackson. Suddenly they had 10 legitimate guys, giving them something in common with absolutely nobody right now. Also helping: Popovich (the best coach alive), Parker (playing out of his mind), Ginobili (healthy again) and Duncan (who magically transformed from the old Duncan into the Old Duncan). Everything just sort of snowballed. If you're keeping track, the Best Team Ever (the '86 Celtics) won 11 of their first 12 playoff games before the Finals, eight by double digits (two by 25-plus). The Second Best Team Ever (the '87 Lakers) won 11 of their first 12, seven by double digits (four by 25-plus). The Third Best Team Ever (the '96 Bulls) won 11 of their first 12, six by double digits (three by 25-plus). And the 2012 Spurs? They won their first eight, six by double digits (one by 25-plus).
OKC seemed relieved to beat the Lakers, with Durant even talking about how happy they were, while the Spurs just kept downplaying how good they were playing, saying that they accomplished nothing.
That shows focus on the Spurs part.
I think that there is a pretty decent chance that the Spurs lose one of the first two. There is also a small chance that they drop the first two.
It doesn't scare me at all. I think the Spurs have just as good a chance of bouncing back from a loss or two and winning in OKC.
I think the Spurs win the series but I am already prepared as a fan to see the streak end and the Spurs responding appropriately.
i like how some people think they know whats best for the players....get the outta here.. what kinda stupid is that?....lose game one?...stupid man....the players are CLEARLY not focused on the winning streak...
Spurs are not losing a game until the first game in OKC. Then they will adjust, and take the second game in OKC. Then finish it here in SA.
JESUS FREAKING CRIPES, ENOUGH ALREADY! if you're reply starts with the idea that i'm saying the spurs are losing focus on something, you've missed the freaking point. the ONLY thing i mention in regards to focus is that folks have said that losing a game would help take any focus away from the streak, WHICH POP HAS SAID WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
i'm not saying they should lose game one to end that streak focus, i'm not saying the spurs are beating teams so badly that they're losing focus on the task at hand, i'm not saying they're losing focus on anything.
the streak thing has been brought up by the media to the point that, according to some poster, the team doesn't even talk about it. my only reason in bringing it up is that it was the basis for a reason why losing a game would be seen as beneficial. to counter that idea, i wondered if that same idea (losing to end any focus on the streak) would remain as beneficial if that game were the first one given all the historical importance of winning a game one.
This talk about the Spurs losing a game because they need a wake-up call (if that's the logic being implied) doesn't make sense. As long as you're winning, why would you need a wake-up call?
it's not being applied (i think you meant applied, though as i look at it, implied might work just as well in this context).
Tbh, the best thing that happened to the spurs was going down 24 to the clips in game 3 and having a close game in game 4.
Thats adversity and they got through it. This was their "wake-up call". Spurs don't need to lose to have a wake-up call.
If they lose, it will have nothing to do with their winning streak and everything to do with thunder just playing better for that game.
I commented in the "tanking game 4 vs. the Clips" thread. I forget exactly what I said and don't care to look it up, but the point was that unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, the timing of their first loss will be important. It's more ideal to lose game 4 on the road when you're up 3-0 than to lose game 1 or 2 at home.
Plus, we've yet to see how this San Antonio Spurs team will respond to the adversity of losing a game in the playoffs. Maybe inexperienced players like Kawhi and Green will regress, leading to a poor performance in the following game, leading to another loss, and so on.
I agree with what someone else said awhile ago, that the 24-point comeback game was in some ways as good as a loss because the team faced big adversity on the road and overcame impressively.
Let's hope for similar results when (if) the Spurs lose a game.
Those quotes were for losing game 4, already up 3-0 against the Clippers. You don't throw a game against an opponent who can flat out beat you. that's ignorant.
thinkn of losing game1, watta
let me try it this way: if the spurs really are focused on chasing history, then they are, by default, actually focused on the streak (if the streak goes, so too does their bid at history). that the players would be focused on chasing history seems like the problem to pop, based on his feelings about thinking losing a game would be beneficial. so my question remains, would losing a game be as beneficial if that game was game one?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
