Reply With Quote
What do you think of that timvp? Do you think that is a good or a bad sign that the assistant thinks that the Spurs are underdogs?
Interesting story from Buck Harvey:
The Spurs didn’t go just anywhere. In sweeping the first two rounds, they went to a place they’ve never been. Both Vegas and the national media embrace the Spurs as favorites.
All of which makes the Spurs’ staff uncomfortable. They think people have gotten caught up with the 18-game winning streak, and they can’t believe the perception that they could sweep the Thunder.
They also wonder if they are built as traditional champions are. Maybe, at best, the Spurs are the Pistons of 2004, a snug fit of pieces, when usually the best teams are the ones with the best players.
Their argument: The record books usually show someone such as Kevin Durant leading a team to a le, not someone such as Chauncey Billups.
“In my heart of hearts,” one Spurs assistant said, “we’re the underdogs.”
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...t-he-once-was/
What do you think of that timvp? Do you think that is a good or a bad sign that the assistant thinks that the Spurs are underdogs?
so basically they think a point guard can not lead the team to a le
and that their point guard is tp
so does that mean they will trade tp for a player like durant that leads the team in scoring....
I wonder if this story is leaked to keep the spurs humble..
Messin with the Thunder.
Does anyone really think ANYONE in the Pop led organization would get away with leaking anything like that?
On one hand, it's probably meant to keep the team humble, as the wise ducks said. Appropriate fear and all that.
On the other hand, that assistant (or "staff" or whoever Harvey is talking to) has a point. This Spurs team is completely different than any team that has ever won a championship. For that reason, I've been somewhat surprised that it seems like everyone is on the bandwagon now.
I mean, yeah, the Spurs are on f'ing fire but the team's construction would shatter the championship team mold that's been around since the beginning of basketball. People could point to the 2004 Pistons but that team was totally different. They had five powerful starters who basically all played 40+ minutes when it was needed. Four of those starters were All-Star level players (Billups, Hamilton, Wallace and Wallace) and the fifth starter (Prince) wasn't far behind.
History says you either need an all-time great player playing at the top of his game or a collection of four or five All-Star level players who can play big minutes.
These Spurs are trying to win a championship with a completely different formula. They have two All-Star level players right now (Parker and Duncan) and exactly one player (Parker) who has consistently played a lot of minutes when needed. To fill the holes, the Spurs have a guy who could reach All-Star status (Ginobili), six above average players and Bonner.
I hope to all that is holy that it's enough for the Spurs to win a championship. If it is, it would be one of the most amazing accomplishments in NBA history just because it's so unprecedented.
Tbh, no championship team in NBA history is anything like these Spurs.
Pulling for the Spurs to make history.
Vegas disagrees.
Considering pretty much everyone is picking the Spurs to win this series, i among others disagree.
There are also precedents involving all-time greats (one of which we happen to have) toward the end of their career winning more or less by sheer force of will.
Never underestimate the heart of a champion.
Like who? If you're talking about Hakeem, he was only 32 and in the peak of his career in 1995. He also averaged more than 42 minutes per game in the playoffs that year.
Late-career Russell didn't have nearly the supporting cast he had earlier. He had some great teammates, but as far as I can remember, nobody on par with the top-5 MVP candidate season Tony submitted.
For that matter, he had Magic on his side, but an absolutely ancient Kareem won a Finals MVP.
Edit: I also don't think anyone would describe '98 Jordan as at the peak of his game.
Of course, if you look at this very short list, it suggests that this may only apply to Top 5 all-timers. But if Duncan lands one for the thumb... it still only applies to Top 5 all-timers.
Last edited by tesseractive; 05-27-2012 at 02:27 AM.
What's tricky to measure with this team is what's the ceiling for a couple of players (ie: Green, Leonard). So far they've played well above the "rook" level. Is it just a fluke or is it a sign of how good they're going to be?
Also, the Spurs have some players that might not be flashy/popular enough to make the AllStar team, but are damn productive. For example, Euroleague MVP Splitter.
Lastly, this team no longer has "known" crap performers in major roles (read:Bonner, RJ). You can have some guys not producing as expected in general (Manu) or depending on the matchups (Jax), but that's common for every team.
C.I.A spurs
He had Havlicek playing 40+ minutes in the playoffs plus a couple other Hall of Famers playing big minutes. Russell himself was still able to play almost the entire game.
MVP level Magic plus HOF Worthy and Byron Scott all playing huge minutes.
Jordan was still ~90% of his prime and he and Pippen played more than 40 minutes per game in the playoffs.
If you stretch it, you could say those are somewhat close. But it's definitely a stretch. Duncan has turned back the close but he's definitely past his prime and his minutes are limited. Parker has had a really good season but he's not an all-time great or anything. No one else on the team is playing at an All-Star level ... much less a HOF level.
This Spurs team spreads the responsibility of winning between ten players like no other championship contending team that I know of.
You're right. There's never been a le team quite like this one. The distribution of minutes is downright bizarre by historical standards
But the fact remains that we have an all-time great who looks like he's turned back the clock, and we had an MVP-type season submitted by Parker, who spent all season proving that he had moved beyond what most of us previously thought of his ceiling and consistently get his teammates involved and make them better. I don't know whether that means that he's potentially an all-time great, but probably the only better season a teammate of Duncan's submitted in a le season was Robinson in '99.
I like our chances.
That '04 Pistons team had some nice depth too: Lindsey Hunter & Mike James backing up the guard positions and Elden Campbell + Mehmet Okur backing up the 4/5. Thank god they couldn't hold onto Okur, as he would have been huge in the 3rd quarter of game 7 in 05 when Tim got McDyess + the Wallaces into foul trouble.
pretty drunk right now.......but honestly never been more prouder to be a spurs fan.... load of heart.
The Spurs haven't handled expectations properly in the past like all the years after their les and the last few years. I can see why they would feel uncomfortable.
How different is it really from '07 Spurs or even last year's Mavs?
Damn. Thunder's a good team but how can we be underdogs?
Not to worry.
If the Spurs lose even Game 1, just watch how fast the media goes back to -- "The Spurs are just too old . . ."
We absolutely are the underdogs. OKC Thunder have been unanimous pick to come out of the West from before the season started right up until we won game 4 against the Clippers.
Thay have done it before. First former ABA team to win the LOB, for example.Pulling for the Spurs to make history.
The will just rewrite the history books again.
One game at a time.
The spurs know they're the best in the league.
But saying they're the underdogs always been the rule.
I called it a week ago. If you use logic and math, Spurs have a mountain to climb vs. OKC.
Not surprising Spurs office agrees with El Che.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
