Reply With Quote
Say what! LOL!Alright.
Pop probably pondered putting post players positioned perfectly, however Pop predetermined propensity for plentiful points and poor positional pairings.
Thats not an alliteration, bozo.Gregg Popovich apparently has a military background- so how’s about a military alliteration? Let’s say you’re at war (a basketball game) and the object of the war is to capture the other’s King (the NBA le). The Spurs, led to Popovich had a system that had won them a record 63 battles all year- best in their territory (Conference). Their compe ion, the Mavericks, were a quicker, more athletic team but lacked anyone that could really challenge the Spurs main gun (Tim Duncan) in the trenches (the paint). The Spurs, being a slower, yet more experienced team, used a system whereby the younger Maverick may in fact get around his first combatant (defender) but were guaranteed to be met (and slowed down) by either one of two tall warriors in the trenches (Duncan, Mohammed, even Rasho). But guess what? Like any General (no not you Avery) that had fought too much without resting his mind, the Spurs leader miscalculated and played DIRECTLY into the hands of Dallas. Instead of using his highly successful strategy, Popovich went with one whereby the Spurs soldiers were asked to battle the younger, faster Mavericks one on one and the option of funnelling into the bigs was no longer there- he took one of two completely out of the equation. So here you have the Mavericks breezing by the likes of Brent Barry and Michael Finley and guess what? Who’s there to shoulder the ENTIRE defensive burden and guard that aforementioned King? Popovich’s premier soldier- the incomparable Tim Duncan. Weird how Duncan picked up more fouls in these seven games than he did practically all season? Good one Pop- real bright.Its an analogy.
San Antonio Spurs sadly sluggish Saturday.
That's an alliteration
Say what! LOL!Alright.
Pop probably pondered putting post players positioned perfectly, however Pop predetermined propensity for plentiful points and poor positional pairings.
I think that with fouls being called the way they were would have posed serious issues for our Centers.
Nazr picks up fouls quickly under normal calling cir stances.
Also, was it not the Dallas series where Nazr played for a minute and there was a six- nine point swing in Dallas' favor?
I know I'm new here but we can't change what has happened. Let's just look forward to coming back nexr season with a vengeance from and kick tail in the NBA and take back not just our le but get some payback too. SPURS IN 2007 YEAR OF PAYBACK
Oh the naivete of the newbies.
We always commiserate about failures and dwell on misery for at least 3 months in here every year. By August, when the new champion is almost forgotten, we forget about the previous year and start looking forward to a better ending the next year.
If only that was actually true...Oh the naivette of the newbies.
We always commiserate about failures and dwell on misery for at least 3 months in here every year. By August, when the new champion is almost forgotten, we forget about the previous year and start looking forward to a better ending the next year.
I doubt anyone here has "forgotten" about 2001 (damn Lakers), 2002 (DAMN Lakers) or 2004 (0.4 ing Lakers).
not forgotten, but I no longer lose sleep about it.
Are you saying you're losing sleep over the loss to the Mavs still?
It doesn't matter what style we should have played or what strategy we should have used, it is all meaningless unless you execute. The Spurs did not have the defensive intensity needed to win that series and they got outrebounded. Your not going to win many games unless you do both and all the games the Spurs won by were the slimmest of margins. I think it had more to do with the at ude the Spurs had in this series. I truly think they underestimated Dallas's athleticism. I really hope Dallas doesn't win the championship because we would have been their biggest conquest rather than whomever they play in the finals.
Well written Walton… but, strictly from a creative stance.
Although I don't agree with you, I was hoping Pop would try starting Nazr or Rasho. My main reason for wanting this was just to mix it up; to throw a wrench in AJ's plan.
I certainly don't think Pop needs to take a step back or time off like the Zen Master did. And I must say that I am so proud of this team and organization! We had a great season with some impressive accomplishments. Sure, it hurt to see Tim play in such great form to no avail, but the passion and drive to come back from a 1-3 deficit was indescribable.
I say, Go Spurs Go... 2007!
Game plans from regular season games don't always translate to the playoffs. I can hear the cliche' now, "dance with the one that brought you there".
I saw Nazr play in game 2 and I wasn't very impressed with his agressiveness. Keep in mind, this isn't Ben Wallace we're talking about. If Nazr had come in and played with the intensity he played with last year, I think he would have had more minutes in that series. Frankenstein, a.k.a. Rasho, on the other hand, is just to damn slow to keep up with the Mavs. Remember, this Mavs team doesn't have Sean Bradley any more.
Also, keep in mind that a "big" would not have done jack squat against a team shooting perimeter jumpers at 80% !!!!!!
Whether you like what Pop did, or not, the Spurs were still 20 some-odd seconds away from advancing to the WCF. If so, this thread would be led "Pop is a basketball genius".
NEXT
I don't think it's fair to say for certain that would have made a difference, just that we, and more importantly the team and those players, deserved to have a chance to find out.While I definitely agree with you in that Pop should have at least tried to play Rasho and Nazr more, how can people say that it would have been a guaranteed difference maker in the series based on the two games we won and in which Nazr played more minutes, when Avery used a different lineup in those games? I was just pointing out that I don't think that's necessarily a good comparison to make.
Um, were you paying attention last year against Phoenix? We didn't chase Amare anywhere. We stepped aside, let him dunk the ball without fouling him for a three point play, let him average 40 PPG for the series, and were moving on to the next one after game 6.So we start Nazr and you have him chasing dirk?? Dirk is too quick.
Same deal with duncan.
Dirk getting 30 or 35 or even if we would have let him get 40 isn't what did the Spurs in. It was Dallas ripping off 60+ PPG in the ing paint.
but of course....you are not????
2 percenter!!!
I'm not losing sleep.
I use every night to dream up next season's revenge.
I'm losing sleep because my baby is sick...
but if not for that, I'm sure the Spurs would be the reason.
Actually, it does piss me off. It's hard to watch the other games...
TD and Manu were on the floor too, I guess they suck too.Also, was it not the Dallas series where Nazr played for a minute and there was a six- nine point swing in Dallas' favor?
No one on this team played with any aggressiveness in that game. Pop tried every Spur, and none of them wanted to be there that night. Singling out Nazr for not stepping up when no one, from the players to the coaching staff, bothered to show up, is a pretty weak argument to use to say a guy shouldn't have gotten more than 27 minutes of run in an entire series when your opponent was lighting up the scoreboard from the paint.I saw Nazr play in game 2 and I wasn't very impressed with his agressiveness. Keep in mind, this isn't Ben Wallace we're talking about. If Nazr had come in and played with the intensity he played with last year,
Pop is to blame..no ifs ands or buts about it.
I think he was abducted by aliens or Mark Cuban dug up some dirt on him and blackmailed him......other than that I can see no sane reason to play the lineup they played after seeing that Dallas was the better team with that lineup 55% of the time.
The stats for that game just do not do justice to how disruptive Nazr was.
That said, I was not singling Nazr out.
I was just amused that given his performance, people think we should have looked to him to save game 3.
Giving Nazr 25 minutes in that situation, barring a major miracle, would have been suicide.
I realize we still lost the game but at least we had a chance at the end.
Last edited by angel_luv; 06-01-2006 at 01:02 PM.
50.1% of the time...
BTW, I think with Rasho and Nazr on the floor, Mavs would be better 99.9% of the time.
Bottom line, Spurs had a chance to win every game, except the one where Nazr played the most minutes.
Coincidence? I think not...
Nazr is a good rebounder and has his nights as a scorer as well.
But the problem is that his butter fingers combined with the way he disrupts our defensive ( and sometimes offensive) flow, productivity wise Nazr pretty much cancels himself out.
Yeah, he forgot how to play basketball in one month.
Good post by Walton. It was stated over and over, but I'll do it one more time: This series against the Mavs were just the same as last year's against the Suns. Dirk is long and athletic as is Amare. The difference is that we let everyone get theirs, while last year we simply erased the rest of the team from the floor and let Amare go nuts. That mistake is on Pop, and Pop only. When he lost in the first round he said when a team losses the coach is supposed to make adjustments, and put Ginobili on the bench. Then he went to 7 games using small ball, although it was pretty obvious he was getting his ass wiped, and the only reason for staying in the series was the unbielievable will to win that Timmy and Manu always show. I'm not saying fire Pop, but ing accept that this team should have taken this series differently.
Interesting take. Manu & Tim were winning despite Pop, huh?
Then how come those two blew the last plays in all the close losses we had?
Look, I'm not blaming Manu and Tim for losing, but I think it's silly to say "This is the one and only reason we lost." There were many factors, and yes, coaching was one factor.
But, bottom line, we went to 7 games against a very good team, and to blame Pop alone seems a little like blaming Manu for costing us game 7.
Right, the same guy who anchored the paint for us from the All-Star break on as we made our run up to best record in the West and 63 wins, and started every game last year on our way to a le, somehow became a huge 'disruption' somewhere between the end of the regular season and the Mavs series.Nazr is a good rebounder and has his nights as a scorer as well.
But the problem is that his butter fingers combined with the way he disrupts our defensive ( and sometimes offensive) flow, productivity wise Nazr pretty much cancels himself out.
Pop messed up by letting Manu be the primary ball handler for the final play in game 7 and by not having Parker in the game. manu got off a wild shot that wasn't even close.
Parker should have had the ball on the last play and try to beat his man with his quickness to the basket (the spurs only needed a score) and if he couldn't he could have had three other options in Duncan inside or Horry and manu outside. If parker gets an inside step to the basket the spurs have a great shot to win it because help would have switched on to parker and Parker could have passed it off to Duncan for an easy score. The play should have been Parker beat your man to the basket and let things go form there not let Manu try to create a shot with the defense already set up.
Pop is to blame for a poor call. Pop took out a good option with Parker on the bench and went with the more turnover prone player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
