Reply With Quote
Ironic and selective indeed.
The spurs actually had more free throws in the series so I don't call that getting cheated by the refs. That series is as fair as it gets in the nba.
Ironic and selective indeed.
Keep trying for that first championship crybaby
sorry, but being up double digits in the fourth with a chance to go up 3-0 and not coming through is not something to pin on the refs. maybe you have a point with one play in game 4 (maybe it was 5) with the phantom foul on wade by dirk (though his hands were on wade) but that still overlooks the missed freethrows by dirk and howard (not to mention dirk choking on a couple of fts and shaq hitting a couple in another game). then to have wade run roughshod over the team in game 6, where no one claimed any kind of ref hex, and the idea of 4 straight losses due to the refs is just weak.
I think Butler was a good signing for you guys, but not for the immediate future. I think he has a lot of upside down the road. I don't see him having much impact in the playoffs next year.
If he can rebound and defend he'll have an impact. We have enough scorers now that we don't need much from him. Any points he gives is gravy as long as he rebounds and defends. He may also reduce the double teams on Tim that come from the center position if he can show an ability to attack the basket hard and score when the double leaves him open.
I have difficulty getting as excited because in my view, the team has gotten worse each year lately, as far as championship contention goes. The team three years ago that lost to the Lakers "acted" most like a championship team. They cremated teams- blowing them away by 30 points as that season wound down. Unfortunately, suddenly, no one- not Hedo, Manu, Rob, Bruce- no one could hit an outside shot. The next year's team was not as complete, but won a le primarily because both Manu and Horry played out of their minds! Last year's team never in my view even remotely resembled a team ready to win a championship. Despite their regular season record, they barely beat teams they should have blown out and lost to teams down the stretch that they should have beaten. I simply never saw it in them. And this coming season, I think it will interesting to see. How many of the guys returning from last year will have that fire to push the team to achieve that utlimate goal and how many of the new players will have it in them to develop their abilties up to the next level?
My concern for the immediate future is that the guy with the most potential is a couple of years away from that potential- that Beno just will never regain his confidence until he is on another team- that no matter how professional a player tries to be, that it will eventually effect Brent with all the trade talk, like it did Malik. I guess my view is that 3 years ago, things were more stable. The team seemed secure in their roles and place within the system, but since then, there has been too much flux within every season. An almost trade of Malik- followed a year later by an actual one-- an almost trade of Brent--a trade of Rasho-- more talk of trying to trade Brent-- confusion over Scola and will he ever come-- conflicting reports about Javtokas, after a month of stories that the deal was already basically worked out, only to have two other guys signed instead. I did not even mention the whole Ron Mercer and Anthony Carter escapades. Too much instability. For a front office that people want everyone to bow down to, they sure do seem to be admitting to a lot of mistakes in the past three years, as exhibited by their subsequent actions. About the only player who has "stuck" in that time is Robert Horry, and he only had one good play-offs and two awful ones. Maybe Michael Finley will "stick" this season. I guess that is why any excitement over signings is very tempered- recent ones just haven't worked out very well.
Cheated in 3 games. Hmm. You are perptuating the "whiny Mavs fan" stereotype.
It's unfortunate that your team lost but you can't blame their choke-job on anybody but the players and the coaches.
One need only look at the roster turnover in the Duncan era to see that this has never been a stable situation, and the Spurs have always been rolling the dice on and off the court pretty much every season. The only difference is when we lose, Spurfans spend the next year contemplating their navels looking for one thing or person to blame.
That's how I've seen it. Stability as far as rosters is something we've only seen the last 2 years and only because the starters have remained the same, but the bench is always changing.
Sounds good to me. People like to get bent out of shape when the team comes a play or two (or call or two) away from advancing. Sometimes it just isn't your year... face it and retool for next year.
Yes, I know there has been a lot of turnover, but not of the same type. There was not before a precedent of Anthony Carter-type fiascos-- of trading for a guy and cutting him DURING the season- like Ron Mercer. There has not been the number of players signed as FA's who they then try to trade 1 1/2 to 2 years later-- and certainly not the number of attempted mid-seasons trades (Malik x2 and Brent). Guys who contracts run out and aren't brought back.. guys who retire- those were the norm for the turnover. And certainly there has not been before the undercurrent of "strife"- players frustrated with trying to deal with the Spurs-- players and draft picks whose relationships with the team seem to have soured, like Malik and Nazr and Scola, and not because of basketball reasons. I just think the turnover has lately has been because of failed partnerships between the players and the team and not before when you simply had guys whose contracts were up or the one year that 4 guys retired.
How do I word this where men can understand- when a one night stand turns into nothing, you aren't surprised-- but when an anticpated long-term commitment never develops and even turns sour, that is different. Just about every attempt at starting any long-lasting player contribution in SA has turned sour in the last 3 years. It really has been 4 years since any move has worked out for the long haul- and that was actually based on a draft from a couple of years prior. Recent history just hasn't been so good.
Patronizing is not helping your argument.How do I word this where men can understand
How can I word this where women can understand-
This is a man's game and if you don't play it the way you are expected to, things may not turn out the way you like it.
How can I word this so women can understand.
ing about getting new prada shoes every year, but being a different color, doesn't let you or mean you have to every ing year.
free agency, salary cap, parity. blowing out teams is not necessary, and not easy to do consistently.
But you are putting the blame on the players- but where is the blame for the FO who signed them in the first place? When things sour, it usually happens with both sides. That is part of my point. Also, the Spurs as an organization have not done a good job of making player decisions. I think that recent history has shown their tendency to sign "overall" good players and try to force them into roles that are not their strengths-instead of finding players whose abilities might be more limited, but at least are in those areas that are needed- like Bruce. Like this off-season- sign one guy who is a great rebounder- at least one.
The comment about men had to do with the fact that men always use the "it's a business" line, but things seem to have gotten personal as of late with the Spurs and some players-like Scola. That is the part I did not think you were getting- that the comings and goings seem to have gotten more "nasty" for lack of a better word. Women, on average, are just more intuned to those type of things- what is going on beneath the surface.
Plenty of blame to go around, but you can't trade the FO.But you are putting the blame on the players- but where is the blame for the FO who signed them in the first place?The comment had everything to do with your smug superiority. It's just as easy for me to say you wouldn't be on this anti-FO crusade if Rasho hadn't been traded away, and as a woman you are being way too emotional about it. Who's right?The comment about men had to do with the fact that men always use the "it's a business" line, but things seem to have gotten personal as of late with the Spurs and some players-like Scola.
You can say this started with Scola, but this Spurs team almost traded away David ing Robinson. Maybe you only started following the team when they picked up Euros, but the way they are doing their job is nothing new.
My smug superiority is based on the fact that the Spurs have a culture and a system, and they do find players that they think will fit. It doesn't always work out, but it's easier to change players than the culture or the FO at this point. If the Spurs keep winning championships every other year, the FO isn't going anywhere. So what does that that mean for the players? They might get traded. That's something every NBA player risks when they signed their guaranteed contracts. Given their compensation, it's tough to see many victims here.
Is furry_spurry Marcus Bryant Slovenian version ?
Missed my point entirely. Oh, well.
I got your point.
You never liked the Spurs front office. You just didn't know it until they traded Rasho.
Or maybe I simply know more than you think.
If you do, you won't tell, so who cares?
Said Jerry Buss.
With an active roster of only 12 players, you do not have the luxury of getting a bunch of players for specific roles. You can get players who have strengths or a tendency towards playing a certain way, and you can certainly give them a nudge in the preferred direction, but it would be patently re ed to pass up a better overall player for one with more specific (but limited) strengths, as you have suggested.Also, the Spurs as an organization have not done a good job of making player decisions. I think that recent history has shown their tendency to sign "overall" good players and try to force them into roles that are not their strengths-instead of finding players whose abilities might be more limited, but at least are in those areas that are needed
.....said Isiah Thomas.
The Spurs did have a specific need: a starting center. So they went out and got two of them. How have they not addressed the issue?
Actually, they got rid of two starting centers and signed two back-up centers.
When you are looking for ROLE players-- to put around Tim, Manu, and Tony-- there is no reason not to look at guys who fill that role more specifically than filling it with someone whose skills will never be used-- for example, Oberto's passing skill. It's fine and dandy that he can pass so well, but when he doesn't get to touch the ball, it does not really serve much of a purpose on the team. In the search for big men this off-season- the greatest need was rebounding- surely in their efforts at getting 3 new big men, they could have signed ONE strong rebounder.
My point is this- you bring in a guy like Brent Barry- but you don't use him in the way in which his strengths can be utilized, and then get mad at him for not being successful. Why was Brent so good in the NBA Finals- he had the ball in his hands. Anyone should have known that who knows his game, but the Spurs this season went back to wanting him to be Steve Kerr. When it comes to a big man to play alongside Tim Duncan- the Spurs should focus on a "gargage man" rebounder who scores easy baskets inside-- something Rasho has never been and never will be no matter how hard he tries. But he sure looked different when Tim was hurt in 2004- when the team utilized his other skills and ran more offense through him. But that was not his regular role. It's about matching a player to the role you want him to fill. I think that is an area in which the Spurs have not shown the greatest insight in the past couple of years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
