Reply With Quote
LOL. Yeah, why are Cavs fans intent on dissing a team that's going to kick their ass, or conversly, even if the Cavs win "Well, Cavs just lucky it wasn't teh Mavs or Sunz."
Way to put down your own team, genius.
The Spurs try hard on defense and then on offense have three guys who are hard to guard.
LOL. Yeah, why are Cavs fans intent on dissing a team that's going to kick their ass, or conversly, even if the Cavs win "Well, Cavs just lucky it wasn't teh Mavs or Sunz."
Way to put down your own team, genius.
The Spurs also work on playing defense without a lot of contact. That's why they had the fewest personal fouls of any team in the league this season, unless you believe Stern is a masochist and seeks to promote a "boring" team in the league's smallest media market.
It's incomprehensible to me. The Spurs only have maybe one guy who can finish spectacularly at the rim and have a shot at making the SportsCenter Top 10. A team needs more guys like that to be really good.
...and they aren't a big shotblocking team nor have anyone who can be considered to be an 'enforcer' ala Lambeer (Horry's hip check notwithstanding).
That they are able to execute so well on both ends of the court without the aerial dunk artists and shotblockers is a testament to the Spurs' focus on the fundamentals of the game.
I think the point is that the Spurs are as good as they are because the organization understands that it's rarely the spectacular that wins.
What makes the Spurs good is an understanding of what actually wins at this level. Of course it all starts with Duncan, who makes everything possible. But once the Spurs figured out what they had in Ginobili and Parker, I think it became clear that if you could find some guys who can hit 3's and accept roles on both ends, the Big 3 become that much more difficult to guard. It would have been tempting -- indeed, some on this board have been so tempted -- to go out and find 2 or 3 more guys who can get to the rim with some regularity and to build a team of slashers. But doing that wouldn't make the Spurs better. It's the combination of slashers and shooters that makes defending the Spurs offense more difficult than it might seem to someone who expects offensive greatness only from teams with glittering weapons all over the floor.
On the defensive end, the Spurs block their fair share of shots, but they general do it in ways that makes the shot block a useful defensive tool -- don't swat it into the seats; deny the shot and create an opportunity to run. The Spurs grab their fair share of steals, but they don't overplay looking for opportunities to steal the ball because they realize that staying within the team concept gives them a great chance to limit scores anyway. Again, it means the Spurs don't look spectacular to someone who defines great play by the wow factor; but it sure looks good on the scoreboard, which is the only place that matters.
But even that wouldn't work unless you had a group of guys who do what they're supposed to do. Everyone on this team has a role. Each of them, it seems, accepts the role; by and large, each does what he's supposed to do. And because there is consistency in that aspect, there's a great deal of trust among the Spurs. That allows for truly team concepts to be the norm and not the exception.
The Spurs tanked in the 1996-97 season and cheated the Celtics to get the #1 draft pick: Tim Duncan.
Because David Stern suspended Amare for wandering away from the bench a little bit when it was all the sucker Horry's fault.
haha. i think that'll fit in a nuts
I personally would go for affixing an asterisk on Cleveland's season.
(1) Came out of the East. They -- maybe -- beat only two or 3 of the West's lower seeds if they were in the West. Played the majority of their games against inferior compe ion, which contributed to their won total.
(2) Played Washington without Arenas and Butler. Had those two cats played, the Cavs may have gone down in the 1st.
(3) Detroit choked.
(4) Got to play NJ, who were missing Krstic. Only Kidd and Jefferson showed up, and VC for about 45 minutes the whole series.
Any more?
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2007 East Champions*, the Cleveland Cavaliers!
Give. Me. A. Break. It is not an accident that the Spurs are in the Finals. They are the best team. Period. What's your conspiracy theory for why we made it to the finals (and won!) the last three times??
Also, Diaw was a non-factor in the final game. Even after Stoudemire's return, they couldn't stand up to the Spurs. People who believe the Suns would have won that series are from the flat earth society. And keep in mind, we were without Horry and were handicapped for TWO games.
Yeah, the Spurs don't belong in the finals. It's obvious by how badly they've gotten owned by the Cavs.
Sorry, but you're an idiot if you really believe all that crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
