Reply With Quote
The Spurs won, so they don't need any excuses.
Why ESPN? No mention at all that the Spurs had just as much of a layoff as the Heat.
You can't have it both ways.
Heat come out and fall behind early, and they are all like "Oh yeah gotta settle down and get the rust off". The Spurs come out and fall behind early, and they are all like "Oh man the Warriors came out with a lot more energy", not that the Spurs were missing wide open shots left and right, and making defensive errors they usually don't make.
The Spurs won, so they don't need any excuses.
Real talk
I'm talking about during the game as much as after the game. I watched both games, and it was all rust...rust...rust during the Heat game, and not even a mention of rust at any point during the Spurs game.
Then it's the same thing again on Sportscenter now.
The announcers spoke briefly asking if you could chalk up the Spurs poor performance for most of the game to rust but I believe it was Webber who immediately said the Spurs are a team that don't make excuses.
Winning rusty is winning
The game was on tnt not espn. Heat game had kerr. He is a hack and brings up cliches. Spurs game had webber. He is og.
Yeah, but they had game recaps on ESPN SportsCenter where they said the Heat were rusty.
And ours wasn't so much caused by rust (not too many lazy turnovers I don't think) just by an inability to stop Curry
Rightfully so. Excuses are for soft teams.
I don't know, but TP needs to start balling early and not look like a scrub for the first half of the game. Spurs missed an enormous amount of layups.
because
1) they won
2) theyre the spurs
Because the Spurs weren't rusty, but just plain bad? A team isn't rusty when its coach starts the turd towers or goes for 4-guard line-ups...
ESPN is giving the Spurs a lot of credit for winning this game and the coverage seems pretty good. Just check the Daily Dime to see what I mean.
How long have you been a Spurs fan? This is nothing new dude.
Get used to 4 guard lineups, the only way to guard them.
Unless Diaw and Kawhi are now guards, the end of the game shows it's not. That doesn't change even with Thompson in.
It was more of a college lineup, three guards and two forwards, with nobody taller than 6-8.
I get it that sometimes/often ESPN takes shots at San Antonio, but I think you're reeeeally reaching here with this one
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2013...ame-1-reaction
4. What's your takeaway from Game 1 on the Spurs?
Gordian: It's hard to draw too many conclusions after one game, even one of that magnitude. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Spurs played more "small ball" going forward. San Antonio's small units score very efficiently and, if the Spurs struggle to slow the Warriors' hot shooting, they're going to need to match it.
Palmer: They're the Evander Holyfield of the NBA. Heart of a champion. I hear Rudy T in my ear when I watch them.
Shelburne: They're still the Spurs. The original "next man up" team got key buckets from Danny Green and defensive play from Kawhi Leonard to make up for an awful shooting night from Manu Ginobili and a flu-ridden Tim Duncan. It wasn't pretty, and the Spurs don't want to try that again, but they came out ahead in a game they had no business winning to hold serve in what promises to be a rugged series.
Stein: That the Spurs, as rusty as they looked, really are in Golden State's head. Because the Dubs -- as slow as San Antonio looked at times trying to keep tabs on Curry -- must think by now that they're never going to win a game in that building. I know those of us in the media tend to overreact about how mentally damaging any one loss is, but this ain't just one loss. This is 30 straight losses in San Antonio dating to Valentine's Day 1997 as well as the second straight playoff game on a massive stage that Golden State unraveled in a huge way in the fourth quarter.
Strauss: Without Tim Duncan or Tiago Splitter, this isn't the Spurs. Since Duncan was ill and Splitter was out, San Antonio looked weak defensively on pick-and-rolls. That will probably change in the future. The Warriors likely lost to San Antonio at its weakest point.
people still watch ESPN?
What about the Lakers? The story line was that they were too wounded to even put up a fight against the Spurs, yet a similarly shorthanded Chicago team can end a 27 game winning streak and win a playoff game on the road against the defending champs (who are 40-1 against the rest of the NBA over their last 43 games).
I noticed that too. The Warriors are a great defensive team, but the Heat were just rusty. Kind of a slap in the face to both the Bulls and the Spurs tbh.
It only matters if the Spurs don't come out and hit those shots and make those defensive plays in game 2, tbh.
Kurt Rambis on ESPN said the Heat were obviously rusty but that the Spurs troubles in the first 3 quarters were due to the Warriors playing magnificent basketball and that it gives him good reason to think they can win this series. That's just how they are over there, unfortunately.
What? Kerr is one of the best color commentators out there. Webber doesn't know much at all about the game.
.double post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
