Reply With Quote
Then your blind, because no one gave more effort than OKCs players. Half of SA's disappeared.It was 100% because the players didn't play hard?
Mmmkay
It was 100% because the players didn't play hard?
Mmmkay
Then your blind, because no one gave more effort than OKCs players. Half of SA's disappeared.It was 100% because the players didn't play hard?
Mmmkay
Uh.....no. Spurs bench blows. Everyone on that bench can go. Anyone stays and it's status quo, with another disappointing end with butthurt fans doing this exact same thing next year.
NEXT...
"your" re ed
When beat by logic, always go after spelling. "your" not smart"your" re ed
If you want logic, watch the video in the OP.
It's better than "play harder guyz
Pop's in game coaching didn't maximize the mismatches. I can understand that he doesn't do this in the regular season but for playoff games, it is disappointing.
The fundamental problem however is that both Aldridge and Leonard haven't mastered the 'beautiful game'. Spurs played like the Thunder in offense with less capable go to players. Unfortunate.
I think that's exactly what the video narrator tries to explain when he says there are 4 guys standing. Although I didnt have to watch the video because I watched the games. And yes, it was about how hard they played. 100%. You play hard = not standing.If you want logic, watch the video in the OP.
It's better than "
You : "oh man Im so cool, I can get this really awesome avatar then it doesn't matter that I post 23k times and their all ty because I'm controversial. Now where can I find some emojis?"
You very wrong, game 2 first quarter performance was very lackadaisical, like they were very naive by underestimate the opponent and didn't understand it was a must win game in order not to get entangle and more pressure, that quarter costed us the game and all series in an insight... No good reason that after game 1 would be that much drop off in level of play, they didnt gave their best fight, even on rebounds you could do better, it's not all about size, pressure got into the team, they couldn't close games... Same story was last season, we were on fantastic roll coming into last game of regular season, were too naive not seeing how the New Orleans game was a must win game, didn't give our all, entangled ourselves with the 6th seed and worst situation and a ruined momentum instead of facing the Mavs to help us more get going and to found ourselves, exactly what we needed that season, against Clippers couldn't finish close games and losing series... Just pathetic how naive and soft we are the last couple of years...It wasn't a matter of effort or toughness. Asking West and Diaw to out-rebound centers is like asking Tony and Patty to guard Russ and KD.
Lol this is hilarious to me
He's more concerned about the 1200 planets than trying to win a basketball game.
Pop is the Ned Stark of the NBA. Unwilling to bend and adapt he got into trouble. Then when he tried to amend some, it was too little too late and got killed.
The rebounding was the key to the series. Not only did it give them control of the game and second chance points, it was a tremendous energizer for OKC players and fans when they kept getting those rebounds and put backs. And while giving props to the "Vanilla Towers" strategy, it completely overlooks how well Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka also rebound. It's not coincidence they are the best rebounding team in basketball. And that whichever team controls the rebounding, controls the game and usually wins over the long hall.
What could Pop have done to combat the OKC two big man strategy?. Our first option was Duncan and LMA. but LMA stays outside too much and Duncan was playing on bad wheels and clearly wasn't mobile enough to play well--or for lots of minutes--no matter how hard he tried. Pop just didn't have any combination of bigs on the bench that could compete with OKC's size for 30 minutes per game.
My version of aaron rodgers R-E-F-S
Spurs have never been a good offensive rebounding team but that can help.
All they needed to do to combat that strategy was punish them on the other end. OKC going big, gave up something on the defensive end. What that was, was a healthy amount of uncontested mid-range jumpers which SA shot all year better than anyone.
Spurs didn't make them pay on that end and that's why Billy was allowed to stay with that. What people seemingly fail to realize is that even with OKC rebounding advantage, FT advantage & bench advantage, every single game was close. It wasn't like those things "solved" the Spurs.
OKC made decision to go for one thing (rebounding) and the expense of being able to contest a lot of the Spurs shots on defense and the Spurs flat out missed. Make a few more shots and all of those OKC adjustments are all for nothing.
Because pop would rather have old stiffs or guys with 0 athleticism because they will always be standing in the right place on D regardless if they can get a rebound, loose ball, etc.
rebounding was half the reason
OKC also had their role players step up much better than we did. To me, OKC was definitely the better team in this series. They executed much better in fourth quarter situations and the Spurs rarely looked dominant after Game 1, whereas OKC finished the series dominant with Game 6.
Foye alone probably hit more 3's than Mills did in a quarter of the minutes, Waiters scored more than Danny Green, and Aldridge came crashing down to earth at the worst time after the first two wonderful games.
Spurs looked slow as , but on the upside they were gonna lose in 5 at the absolute most vs the Warriors anyway.
You must have been watching a different game than I was. The Spurs starters were playing the same way they played all season. Pound the ball into LMA or Kwahi and depend on their ISO skills and a great shooting percentage to win. OKC is known for that offense, eh? And we've always sneered at them because of the reliance on Durant and Westbrick-- and we just knew they'd crack in the fourth quarter and go hero ball and miss shots. Didn't happen.
On the other hand, I saw a lot of determined defensive pressure on our two guys from OKC which led to late shots and bad shots. Even if they were able to kick it out to one of the other players who were standing around watching the Big 2 operate against double and sometimes triple teams with all that length, the shots we got were rushed or bad shots. We looked a lot like the older version of the OKC offense, relying on two scorers to have great games. Uncharacteristically, OKC actually passed the ball sometimes and gave a lot of effort on defense. They looked a lot like us.
It did happen. OKC scored under 100 in 4 out of 6 games. This was a top 2 offense that got shut down for the most part. The reason they scored as much as they did was FT disparity and offensive rebounds. Even with that could barely crack 100.
Spurs did play the way they did all season. They got shots they got all season and made. They missed. It happens. GS isn't missing and you are seeing what happens.
And again, while OKC did well on the shots they contested, they gave up more uncontested looks than contested FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES. I have never seen a team get more "open" looks than "contested" through 6 games. I'm all for giving credit - I just don't think Wins/Losses dictate that credit but how it happened.
In regards to keeping OKC under 100, you're right that's great and what the Spurs would love to do heading into the series. It's the same thing with both GS games in SA where Spurs held GS under 95 points and still managed to lose a game, and the one game they won GS shot the poorest they had all season and the Spurs barely won.
I think the offense was the elephant in the room for this team all season. They were great against most of the league, but when it came to the elite (especially on the road) the Spurs struggled a lot of the time putting the ball into the basket. The one other game they won vs OKC after Game 1 they were in absolute god mode from downtown in Game 3 (8/13 from downtown at one point) and hung on to win by 4.
I think even if the Spurs played GS, they'd still struggle to score because this team just isn't good enough on offense against the other elite teams. It was always going to be something that would haunt on the Spurs. As well as the inability to keep teams off the FT line in these playoffs.
Warriros proving my point and showing how pathetic spurs is...
No - OKC proving the point about attacking the rim and FTA/Rebounding wins in this league. KL and LMA too afraid to do either.
I don't agree much with you, but I agree with this
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions