Reply With Quote
If that comment was aimed at me Marcus then that is pathetic.
The initial argument was whether the team could win 65+. And I said no. It has too many flaws and inconsistencies to EVER consider 70 wins.
I never said they could not win the le.
This team has flaws, namely a lack of physicality at the center position, free throw shooting, and skittish little fans.
Relax.
If that comment was aimed at me Marcus then that is pathetic.
The initial argument was whether the team could win 65+. And I said no. It has too many flaws and inconsistencies to EVER consider 70 wins.
I never said they could not win the le.
All of your posts are filled with some kind of strange pessimistic anxiety. What is it with Connecticut based Spurs fans? Ghost, rascal, and yourself need to lighten up.
All your posts are filled with are scolding of other posters who defy your takes or say anything negative about the team.All of your posts are filled with some kind of strange pessimistic anxiety. What is it with Connecticut based Spurs fans? Ghost, rascal, and yourself need to lighten up.
The difference between me Ghost and rascal is that I actual argue about basketball and get descriptive about my takes, I don't scold posters to make my point. I would rather talk basketball than get into arguing matches, you on the other hand have more posts that are more focused on denigrating another poster than actual basketball talk.
For instance, why is it you never argue descriptively about basketball with posters you disagree with, but yet you have countless number of one sentence posts that simply serve the purpose of insulting that same poster?
It's a mix of both. I think you can consistently count on scoring coming from the bench on this team. And that aliviates the lack of a HUGE 2nd scorer. With Brown, Udrih, Rose, and Barry coming off the bench you have leway from which you don't need 20+ from a 2nd scorer.
I also don't think you're giving Manu nearly enough credit as far as his scoring goes.
Do I think this team can win 4 out of every 5 games? Yeah, I do. And I think they will.
I am giving him plenty of credit. He has scored ridiculously efficiently thus far this season. It's more his consistency I am concerned with. For instance he has been off lately, and with Parker's inevitable improvement on the offense end looming, its possible Manu may defer too much to his own detriment.I also don't think you're giving Manu nearly enough credit as far as his scoring goes.
He has the ability score productively and I hope he continues it as Parker regains his touch.
One does not have to write a 10,000 word essay every time they post in order to discuss basketball. I like to practice brevity. Try it sometime.
I only give posters what they deserve. If they post thoughtful, concise, and well reasoned posts then they have my respect.
If they post consistent nonsense like Ghost, Sequ, and TPark, then they end up on my scorn and ignore lists.
I'm confused, you seem to be split between saying we can't do it...and telling me what needs to happen for us to be able to do it...
Well...you keep bringing up Parker's scoring...do you think he's going to continue to score 12ppg...and shoot 135% from 3?
I don't...I see nothing to indicate that trend will continue...and Manu's numbers are good...he's not Kobe...he's not that type of 2 guard, that doesn't mean he's a weak player.
And I think the Spurs do have a dominant offense...it's name is Tim Duncan and he is always going to be a dominant offensive force...he's been the #1 or #1a dominant offensive force for about 5 years now.
Did you read the quotes from Phil Jackson's book?
Last season he didn't think it was likely to beat the Spurs...he thought it was impossible to beat them 4 times in a row...but he had a team that had a certain comfort level against the Spurs, and a champions confidence that was independent of statistics...and that enabled them to do things they probably shouldn't have been able to do against us.
You bring up the 2001 team...that was very balanced team, it was an awesome statistical team...but what the stats didn't show was the age of our perimeter players and the effects of Sean Elliott's kidney on his ability to defend Kobe Bryant. They also didn't show AJ's total lack of any perimeter game but that's another story entirely....
I have to admit, some of the biggest disappointments in Spurs history have come from teams that on paper were the most balanced teams...you have to look beyond the stats and look at the versatility of this team...In doing so I see differences between this team and the past teams that were so balanced and still got buttwhuppings in big games....On this team, every guard on the team has a perimeter game...So, you just have to look at all the factors beyond stats...like age, rivals..experience, depth...etc.
MB for instance makes an attempt at doing so...
He makes a legitimate point on FT shooting...
but like yourself, he fails to weigh in all the factors, all the aspects at play here...before he makes his negative judgement...
Notice how MB makes yet another asslike comment about Rasho...On the surface it seems intelligent...but when analyzed more close you see he judges without ever considering that only 1 player makes Rasho look soft...and his name is Shaq...he considers Rasho a liability against Shaq...but...what he doesn't realize, the doors he is unable to unlock within his brain...his inability to grasp the 3rd T if you will..... is that Shaq no longer plays for LA...he no longer plays in the WC, which means we will see him 2 times this season, not 4, and we have already beaten him once...and that he is also on the decline and he no longer has a 9 time champion coach.
This is not a typical NBA season, and this is not a typical Spurs team...the Spurs have a very good base from which to push themselves to an all time high in regular season performance.
Nikos,
When you're done giving yourself a hardon over your basketball knowledge, answer this.
Are the Spurs currently winning at a pace that would give them 65 wins?
I knew you were going to use that "10,000 word essay" comment too.
To lump me with rascal and Ghost who I have argued plenty with is a slap to my face.
I thought I posted about basketball a lot, but I guess all my posts are just essays filled with drivel?
A hardon? All I said was I like talking about basketball more than making jokes and scolding other posters. What the is wrong with that?When you're done giving yourself a hardon over your basketball knowledge, answer this.
I mentioned FT woes plenty of times last season. I guess you were not paying attention. Just because I factor in stats does not mean I have not been saying the same things that others are saying.but like yourself, he fails to weigh in all the factors, all the aspects at play here...before he makes his negative judgement...
If my posts have become that pathetic and annoying to others that they stop reading them because I mention stats, then I can stop posting statistics or my opinions if you'd like.
ok ok, but answer the question.
As of right now, the spurs are on pace to win how many games?
We are simply not arguing about the same thing. I said I do not think the team can win 65+, I never said they cannot win a le.I'm confused, you seem to be split between saying we can't do it...and telling me what needs to happen for us to be able to do it...
They might be able to win it without Parker or Manu playing much better than last season. But they will not be a 65+ win team if Parker and Manu do not become more consistent.
You want stats Nikos....
Here's one that fits right in line with my two franchise player theory...and it clearly shows how you under-rate Manu...how long till you join fools row?
From 82 games.com...the top player pairs in the NBA:
Code:Current player pair leaders in 2004-05 (as of 11/29) # Team Player1 Player2 +/- Off/g Def/g Net 1 SA Ginobili Duncan +148 103.2 80.7 +22.5 2 SEA Allen Radmanovic +146 109.1 87.0 +22.1 3 CLE Gooden Ilgauskas +145 100.5 80.3 +20.2
Now how Stoudamire and Nash aren't in that grouping I don't really know...but as you can see...the Spurs do have the 1-2 punch to pull off a big win season, as I surmised earlier.
What does that have to do with the argument? Its early in the season and their are still teams like the Sonics and the Suns who are inferior but still are on pace to win 60+.As of right now, the spurs are on pace to win how many games?
Mistake #1...Classifying the Spurs as the same type of team as the Suns and Sonics.
I'm not too sure about how inferiror the Suns are, but the point being that we haven't seen what this Spurs team can do and they are ALREADY on a pace to win 66 games.
The real reason we havne't seen many 60+ win totals for the spurs over the past few years is because of their slow starts. We always expect a blistering finish and if they keep going the way they are, that won't be nessecary.
It's not a lock by any means, but to say that it's beyond the realm of possibility is foolish.
Manu has been very good thus far this season. Stats wise, intagible wise, and BASKETBALL wise etc..Here's one that fits right in line with my two franchise player theory...and it clearly shows how you under-rate Manu...how long till you join fools row?
But I notice he is slipping a bit in his scoring consistency lately. And with Parker getting off to a slow start its not unreasonable to assume Parker will score more, and Manu will defer and score less down the line.
Again, it means nothing now. The Spurs are winning. All I am saying is it would take a noticable improvement from the backcourt THIS season to warrant 65+ wins.
I understand the Spurs were very good last season. I read parts of Phil's book (about the Spurs). I realize the Lakers got a little lucky last season. But the argument is not if the Spurs are good enough to win the le. The argument was 65+ wins THIS season.
And Whott I lumped the Spurs with the Sonics and Suns for the sake of Manny trying to make some sort of point -- not sure what it was?
I know the Sonics are not as good as the Spurs. Regardless of how hot they are right now. I actually still would not be suprised if the Sonics missed the playoffs.
The point he was trying to make was that those teams are not in the Spurs class yet have a simmilar projected wins according to their win percentages at this point in the season.
The Sonics are there only because of shooting, will is hard to keep up over the course of the season.
The Suns have a very solid team.
The Spurs are there because of their defense however, and that is eactly why they will win 65 games.
Ilike nikos post
if you do not then do not read them
atleast he brings a decnt take
not one line
impossible to win 70? no. improbable? yes. (Sorry ducks..I know its just one line)
Yes Nikos, you are the most optimistic and knowledgeable Connecticut based Spurs fan.
Yeah but he's saying the record of those teams isn't indicative of where they are likely to finish the season, that they are unlikely to maintain that pace...I have to think that the major reason he thinks that about those teams is their past performance...and he's right...he's using them as an example of why the Spurs are unlikely to maintain their current pace as well...there is nothing to indicate they won't maintain the this current pace...traditionally the Spurs do maintain their pace once their D and confidence are established.
The Spurs are also the one with the recent ring and the one that won 57 games last season. This winning isn't new to the Spurs...only doing it in the first half....
exactlythere is nothing to indicate they won't maintain the this current pace...traditionally the Spurs do maintain their pace once their D and confidence are established.
The Spurs are also the one with the recent ring and the one that won 57 games last season. This winning isn't new to the Spurs...only doing it in the first half....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
