Reply With Quote
To me, I rank Spurs potential opponents like that :
Easy : Rockets and Blazers.
Medium : Mavs and Jazz.
Hard : Nuggets and Hornets.
Of all the teams on that list, the Jazz and Nuggets scare me the least. And since Chauncey Billups can play physical defense on Tony, and Anthony knows how to bully everyone including Bowen, I don't see that being an ideal matchup.
Utah is strong at home, but plays mediocre on the road. On the flipside, the Spurs play well on the road, and have the Jazz's number at AT&T. And I still can't help but feel that San Antonio is in Utah's head, especially after 2007.
To me, I rank Spurs potential opponents like that :
Easy : Rockets and Blazers.
Medium : Mavs and Jazz.
Hard : Nuggets and Hornets.
I agree with Tim, dallas may be my least favorite team in the west and I would love to be the ones to take them out... but thats a tough matchup for us.
My vote would be for the nuggets... with the blazers being a very close second. Went for denver mainly because I want to see LA vs Portland in the first round.
*edit* I also think we shouldnt sleep on the Jazz, they are playing good basketball right now, and IMO are the 3rd best team in the west.
Last edited by Trimble87; 03-27-2009 at 02:01 PM.
I have no fear of Houston. We match them well and will dispatch them easily when we are at full strength. The scariest team is Portland for SA. I believe we will see less favorable calls more so against Portland than even the Lakers. The NBA would love nothing more than to say the young has ushered out the old.
I would say I want Houston because the Spurs matchup very well and I can't imagine the Spurs losing to them.
But I can't say that because of what happened the last time I said that I wanted Houston
bring on the mavs!!!
I totally agree with Bruno.
1. Rockets are easy, Blazers are still too young. These series would probably be 5 games.
2. Mavs always play over their heads against us, so they're more difficult, as is Utah, who has great size. But both would go down in 6 games.
3. Hornets match up well with us, and the Nuggs are very talented - thus dangerous. Both of these are probably 7 game series.
Lakers.
I pick the Jazz. They're gonna be a tough "out" for any team, yet the Spurs match up fairly well with them. They also play a style that is favorable to what the Spurs want to play.
If it were possible, I'd rather the Spurs draw the Clippers.
i pick the Jazz... slow paced.. just what we need...
I have no idea who I'd want the Spurs to face in the 1st round. One thing is for sure...the Western Conference Playoffs are gonna have some damn good match-ups from the 1st round and on...
I picked the Hornets so we could eliminate whiny-ass CP3 and David West back-to-back.
Pick Your Own: The Future Of Playoff Formats?
By Marc Stein
ESPN.com
(Archive)
This is the only fantasy basketball that I'm playing all season. So please indulge me.
Please join me in imagining how the first round of next month's playoffs would look if the NBA suddenly adopted the new D-League format which allows division winners to pick their first-round opponents.
Please join me because it might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.
Switching to this format at the big-league level would undeniably be one of the most radical playoff changes in the history of American sport. It's one thing to try it in the D-League, where first-round matchups are a one-game series … and where no team possesses any significant home-court advantage … and where the stakes are so modest. In the NBA? It would be as aggressive as anything commissioner David Stern has ever tried.
Yet Stern told ESPN.com on Friday -- without making any promises or pinpointing any sort of timetable, since there isn't one yet -- that the league's compe ion committee would eventually decide whether to formally consider such a system in the NBA … after the way it functions in the D-League can be studied.
It is a thoroughly intriguing idea once you get past the initial shock. The regular season would certainly mean more if we went to a pick-your-opponent scheme because division les would mean more, compared to the present where divisional races are fairly pointless. You could argue that teams would have less to play for late in the season without any formal seedings to clinch, but there would also no longer be any incentive for teams to try tank their way into a more favorable first-round matchup based on standard seedings, as we sometimes see.
Best of all?
The various permutations involved in trying to forecast which teams might chose whom -- along with the perceived disrespect that would be inflicted when a team sitting 5-through-8 found itself hand-picked by a higher seed that basically just told the world it wants to play Team X -- would inevitably pump some needed intrigue into a 82-game season that is often slammed as too long.
So let's get started with our own study. Let's bounce it around and see what the first round would look like in each conference if the top-seeded division winner picked first, followed by the second-seeded division winner and then the third-seeded division winner, with the next-highest seed landing the leftover team that hasn't been selected.
Here's how we'd expect the brackets to develop, with the order of selection based on Saturday morning's standings:
No. 2-seeded San Antonio picks … Portland
This would be the hardest call of them all for the six teams hypothetically making selections, since the Spurs would be forced to choose between Portland, New Orleans and Utah. I'm guessing they'd actually rather play the Tracy McGrady-less Rockets in Round 1 -- with the inexperienced Aaron Brooks at the point and the pick-and-roll-vulnerable Yao Ming -- than any of those other three teams. Only the Blazers' inexperience would appeal to San Antonio, with Portland lacking in any sort of playoff know-how but also possessing a blossoming closer in Brandon Roy, no shortage of depth and athletes and a certifiable home-court advantage.
The only variable that could conceivably change the Spurs' thinking if faced with these options would be Tyson Chandler's stubborn ankle injury. If the Spurs knew for sure that the Hornets wouldn't have Chandler, on top of longstanding depth issues and an overreliance on Chris Paul, New Orleans would be the friendlier choice, reluctant as San Antonio would be to give Paul and Co. any more motivation than they'd already have after losing a Game 7 to the Spurs at their place last spring.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-090328-29
other than the hornets and lakers, the spurs can easily match up with any team. the way to beat the spurs in the playoffs is being able to stop 2 of the big 3. only teams that can potentially accomplish that are the lakers and hornets. in the playoffs last year, duncan played his worst offense against the hornets only averaging 15.2 points on 42% shooting. hornets struggled to stop ginobili and parker so they lost last year. but this year they can potentially contain ginobili or parker with chandler and posey. paul is quick enough to keep up with parker, chandler is a good shot blocker, and posey is a huge upgrade defensively over whoever they had last year. both posey and ginobili play off the bench so that will be interesting. no individual can shutdown chris paul and spurs still have no answer for david west. they've regressed significantly this year but can still make a playoff push because their lack of depth will be less noticeable.
I picked the Blazers based on the facts that they are so young and inexperienced as well as a mediocre road team. The Spurs can win on the road and I feel that if we play the Blazers we can take 1 out of 2 come games 3 or 4. I think more likely game 4 since I believe the Blazers will be so jacked the first home game of the playoffs they just might play out of their minds. Then again that might be to their disadvantage, too. But as we all know the playoffs are completely different from the regular season in intensity and level of play. Unless you have been there the first time is a learning experience. Something I think the Blazers have to go through in order to understand what it takes to go deep in the post season. I think the "I can't believe we're in the PO's Wow!" at ude will play a part in their performace. When they realize what it really takes then I think they will crack under the pressure. History usually proves this accurate. The Blazers are one of the teams of the future and when they get a taste of post season I think they will be quite formidable in the seasons to come.
I voted for this because I let the whole "Portland is young and scary" crowd cloud my judgment. But this team with Billups is scary. Definitely more so than Portland. Looking all these teams, Den, Ut, Dal, NO all have All-star PG's. Portland the only one without a pointguard to dictate the offense.
This should be a Topic of it's own
aww man no suns? :'(
As long as we're just wishing, I'd like us to play Memphis.
Well, there are almost as much advices as Spurs' fans.
And it's not that surprising when you see that all these teams have between 26 and 29 losses. All these teams have about the same level.
+1
honestly the only reason is so after a sweep all spurs fans on ST will have a field day(year) of talkin to the mavs and this place will never be boring
NO has dropped to 7th and is our match up right now. I agree with Stein that it is an ideal one if Chandler is not back...but even if he is I really don't fear them. They aren't nearly as good as they were last year.
unless chandler's injuries don't heal in time, the rockettes. no tmac, rookie pg, yao susceptible to p&r.... what more can you ask for?
bring on the blazers
i think Portland would be easiest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
