Blame Game

[Obstructed_View]

Defense-- Dallas scored over 100 points in all 4 games they beat the Spurs. Dallas never scored over 100 on Miami the whole Finals.

Also, for the entirety of the series, the Spurs won close game after close game (in addition to getting blown out once)-- not one decisive victory of their own. Actually, they ended the season with a number of losses and close calls. To me- they never quite "got there" this season.

Completely ing the rotation and the lineups will do that to a team. Unfortunately the Spurs peaked in the first game of the playoffs and never got a chance to do it again.

[SequNets]

Good posts so far. One key that hasn't been mentioned is the Spurs couldn't rebound to save their life in the playoffs. They got outrebounded in 11 of the their final 12 playoff games, including all the games against the Mavs.

You don't win championships if you can't rebound.

Good point. I see that the Spurs have addressed this problem by getting rid of the players that didn't play in the playoffs.

Nice.

[Obstructed_View]

Good point. I see that the Spurs have addressed this problem by getting rid of the players that didn't play in the playoffs.

Nice.

Yeah, but those guys suck. Dirk was going to score 50 points a game and foul Duncan out in 12 minutes, and Howard was going to score 40 a game. Man, that would have been a terrible series.

[ducks]

ok he is updated time to close this thread before I get mad that the spurs last
I just got over it

[FromWayDowntown]

Good posts so far. One key that hasn't been mentioned is the Spurs couldn't rebound to save their life in the playoffs. They got outrebounded in 11 of the their final 12 playoff games, including all the games against the Mavs.

You don't win championships if you can't rebound.

That's a great point. It wasn't just a playoff problem -- they got abused at times during the regular season too, including two drubbings by Detroit.

It brings up another point, I think.

Pop learned against Sacramento that Nazr and Rasho, for whatever reason, weren't terribly effective against guard and wing-oriented offenses. Against SAC, there was a bit more leeway to play them, because the matchups allowed it. In that series, Pop could play Tim on 4-type player (Thomas and Abdur-Rahim) and allow Rasho/Nazr to deal with Miller.

When the Kings went small -- much smaller than the Mavericks ever did -- with Bibby, Martin, Wells, and Artest, those bigs couldn't do a damned thing to help the Spurs; the Spurs struggled at those points much like they struggled with Dallas. In the end, the Spurs won that series because they were more talented and deeper than the Kings. When they ran into a Mavericks team that was equally talented and, perhaps, deeper in the sense that it was better equipped to constantly dictate the style of the game, the problems that Sacramento exposed were truly exploited.

Think about it: even with time on the court against SAC, Rasho and Nazr didn't do much in the way of rebounding or blocking shots -- the very things that the anti-small ball crowd argues they would have done for the Spurs against Dallas. Rasho had 5 blocks against the Kings, but 3 of those came in one game; he had 27 rebounds in 6 games, but he had 10 in Game 3 and another 7 in Game 1, which left 10 rebounds in the other 4 games. Nazr was probably worse -- he had 25 rebounds in 5 games, but at least 11 of those 25 came in garbage time at the ends of Game 4 and 6.

The notion that Rasho and Nazr were going to patrol the lane and rebound and block shots against the Mavericks strikes me as somewhat fanciful. They had their chance to do it under much better cir stances (more favorable matchups for them) against SAC and sucked. How could anyone (particularly Pop) realistically expect that those numbers would improve against Dallas?

I think that's particularly true because of the matchup problems that Dallas presented. When the Mavs played a lineup that didn't compel three quality perimeter matchups on the defensive end, Rasho and Nazr could hang in there a bit, because Duncan could slide to Griffin and allow the bigs to deal with Diop and Dampier. When Dallas added offensive firepower by replacing Griffin with Harris, those guys couldn't have hoped to guard anyone on the floor without exposing Duncan to either significant foul trouble or serious fatigue, either of which would have been fatal to the Spurs.

I don't mean to put everything on Rasho and Nazr (and I don't mean to completely absolve Popovich), but I think the point is a valid one to debunk arguments concerning Pop's willingness to go small against Dallas.

In the end, what did the Spurs in -- and what they almost overcame at the end of Game 7 -- was a roster that was close but not quite prepared to play multiple styles. And ultimately, the Spurs were exposed as a team that, because of a lack of athleticism among its bigs, couldn't do important things like rebound effectively against teams with athletic and aggressive rebounders.

[SequNets]

When Rasho and Nazr played in the playoffs, the Spurs won a championship. They beat Denver, Phoenix, Dallas and Detroit.

Now let me hear some more BS examples... Bottom line the Spurs had more tools to win this year playing their way and didn't capitalize on it for some unknown pop damn reason.

Oh well, life goes on... the pack has caught up and is running by. The window was partially open.

The reason why the Spurs lost was because of the one thing between Manu's ears. His brain.

Straight up, no excuses. Manu lost this series by himself. Everyone that played minutes gave their hearts out only to have it ed up by Ginobili.

There was no reason to unload players or lose players.

63 wins and a Game 7 Ginobili foul pretty much wrapped it up.

Go Nets.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

As far as Game 7, I blame the Mavericks for hitting 101% of their first half shots. As subpar as our small-ball defense was, they were knocking down everything, and it was too much to overcome.

This is something I hardly ever seen mentioned anymore. They seriously missed like only one shot in the first quarter and were shooting ~78% for the first ing half.

The mavericks were on a mission, and played the best ball in their entire franchise HISTORY against the Spurs that series. And what happens? The spurs beat themselves out of it with an idiot manu move. It happens, gotta let it go, manu is still a total idiot, but he did hit many great shots, so did finley, so did parker, so did duncan. We played our hearts out and were one foul from repeating. Oh well, live and learn.
Still a waste of Duncan's prime though.

[EVAY]

As disappointed as I was in the ultimate result, that disappointment was tempered by a broader view of the series. I'm more convinced than ever that this group has whatever quality it is that makes champions champions -- the heart of a champion, whatever. They didn't get it done this time, and there are many, many reasons for that. But in the old days, the Spurs would have just rolled over and died after Game 4. The old Spurs would have rolled over and died down 20 at home in Game 7. This group didn't do that, largely because the core of Duncan and Parker and Ginobili didn't seem willing to allow it to happen. Finley seems to add to that. I think, despite the loss, that the series was indicative of that kind of mentality; couple that with the emotional fuel of feeling like they let it slip away, better health for both Duncan and Ginobili, and a handful of necessary tweaks to allow this team to deal better with the new NBA, and I think they've got a great chance to make a run at it again this coming season.

Ginobili made a huge error at the end of Game 7 and that was unfortunate because it clouds the fact that he made so many gigantic plays in Game 7 that gave the Spurs a chance to win it in regulation. The Spurs were a team built on the old NBA paradigm and made to play against a team ready to play the new style. Even with a roster ill-equipped to play that style, the Spurs were thatclose to sending the Mavericks reeling (for years, probably) and likely grabbing back-to-back les. If the Spurs could get into another matchup with Dallas and get anything out of Bonner, a backup point, and whoever ends up playing center here, it will be more than they got out of Nesterovic, Mohammed, and Van Exel; in a series that was as close as that one was, even just a little more from those spots and you win.

I think the Spurs were beaten by a team that was challenged the norm and won at a time when the Spurs were still the norm. I think, in the end, it will prove to be beneficial, despite costing the chance for a repeat.

Are you Pop? Anyway, I actually agree with this analysis. We never would have gotten this far had Manu not been Manu for us. Bad decision on the last play, but I agree it shouldn't have been called. That's Javie for you, not Manu.

[furry_spurry]

Good point. I see that the Spurs have addressed this problem by getting rid of the players that didn't play in the playoffs.

[FromWayDowntown]

Good point. I see that the Spurs have addressed this problem by getting rid of the players that didn't play in the playoffs.

Nice.

Maybe they've addressed it by trying to find players who can play during the playoffs.

Just a thought.

It's not 2005 anymore.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Bonzi looking like freaking Dennis Rodman on the glass against us.

I'm not sure the Spurs are going to be able to fill those needs for a long three and a center who can rebound, defend, and create a shot. I'd love to think we'll fill those gaps, but I'm not sure how it will be done, barring a couple of miracle trades. '06-'07 could be one of those transitional seasons as the Spurs make moves in an effort to clean up the roster and plan for '07-'08. I'd expect to see the status quo in terms of personnel moves where the Spurs sign a couple of veterans in an attempt to plug some holes in the lineup.

Can you say Spreewell??

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Can you say botched roster

[Obstructed_View]

If the Spurs had made the decision to go to smallball ten games earlier, they would have won the championship. They were playing against a good Mavericks team while learning on the fly. By the end of the series, they had it pretty much figured out and were every bit the equal of the Mavs, despite being very tired and very beat up. It took an insane first half and a little luck for the Mavericks to get out of that series with a win. Getting down by double digits to good teams was a problem they had all year, and proved to be their downfall. Manu's foul was bad, but it was completely excusable IMHO. The Manu that's afraid to commit the foul is the Manu that's afraid to take the three that put them up in the first place.

Moral victories are for losers, but if the Spurs stick with what they know for the playoffs, they'll probably be fine.

[gospursgojas]

I like how if anyone else brought all this old stuff up, folks would be all over him/her.

[furry_spurry]

Maybe they've addressed it by trying to find players who can play during the playoffs.

Just a thought.

"no-defense; no-rebounding" Bonner

[FromWayDowntown]

"no-defense; no-rebounding" Bonner

If Bonner can stay on the floor by offering the sort of athleticism that neither Rasho nor Nazr possesses, the "no-defense; no-rebounding" Bonner will outdo them by grabbing a rebound here and there. He doesn't have to average 10 boards a night to be a better playoff fit than either Rasho or Nazr.

[furry_spurry]

If Bonner can stay on the floor by offering the sort of athleticism that neither Rasho nor Nazr possesses, the "no-defense; no-rebounding" Bonner will outdo them by grabbing a rebound here and there. He doesn't have to average 10 boards a night to be a better playoff fit than either Rasho or Nazr.

So, Bonner can cover Dirk?

Better play-off fit-- depends who you play. Maybe the Spurs play the Rockets in the first round-- followed by the Clippers-- and Bonner can shut down Yao and Brand.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, Bonner can cover Dirk?

Better play-off fit-- depends who you play. Maybe the Spurs play the Rockets in the first round-- followed by the Clippers-- and Bonner can shut down Yao and Brand.

That's not what I said. I just said that if Bonner can stay on the floor even for a few minutes each night in the playoffs without being completely overmatched from an athletic standpoint, he'll bring more to this team than Rasho or Nazr could in similar cir stances.

I'm by no means proclaiming that Matt Bonner is a defensive stopper who should be expected to hold down centers -- I'm by all means saying that Matt Bonner is here because he's more capable of playing and defending an someone on the floor when teams play more athletic lineups without completely disrupting the Spurs' schemes than either Nazr or Rasho. Is that simple enough.

It wouldn't be very difficult to outproduce the playoff numbers of Rasho or Nazr from 2006, but I'm relatively sure that neither Rasho nor Nazr would outproduce those numbers if either stayed in San Antonio.

[Solid D]

When Rasho and Nazr played in the playoffs, the Spurs won a championship. They beat Denver, Phoenix, Dallas and Detroit.

No, not quite. They didn't play Dallas. As mentioned before, they beat Denver, Seattle, Phoenix and Detroit.

[furry_spurry]

I'm by all means saying that Matt Bonner is here because he's more capable of playing and defending an someone on the floor when teams play more athletic lineups without completely disrupting the Spurs' schemes than either Nazr or Rasho. Is that simple enough.

No- Bonner is here because he has an expiring contract.

[violentkitten]

spurs got beat because they the mythical warrior nazr mohammed turned out to be worthless

[timvp]

No- Bonner is here because he has an expiring contract.

I call BS on that.

The Spurs danced Bonner around the media after the trade. When the Spurs get someone who is just a salary filler, they tend to pretendt hey don't exist. Ron Mercer, Jamison Brewer and now Eric Williams were never more than cap fillers and the Spurs treated like such.

Bonner will surprise this year.

[violentkitten]

here is my tribute to jamison brewer

[carina_gino20]

Mmmm..Did Manu grabbed the whole arm or was he just slight slapping the arm and most of the ball??

the fouls were never called most of the time LATE IN THE 4th QUARTER, and this foul call on Manu should not have been called. It would be a 1 point game. Ah well, I have moved on and will be expecting those once in a lifetime foul in the 4 quarter of the playoff..if any.

cheers,

as i remember, games 3-7 had late fouls called. there was that phantom call against Barry allowing Dirk to give Dallas a 1-pt lead. Then there was that Bowen handcheck, whch could have gone either way but shouldn't have been called in a tight game like that.

[polandprzem]

Good posts so far. One key that hasn't been mentioned is the Spurs couldn't rebound to save their life in the playoffs. They got outrebounded in 11 of the their final 12 playoff games, including all the games against the Mavs.

You don't win championships if you can't rebound.

Now you are talking about rebound all the time - big



Btw. I'm forcing myself to watch the Finals game today. It will hurts, maybe I will destroy something in my house, but I have to do it....