Spurs were looking good vs the Cavs and Raps. What changed?

[SAGirl]

no simmons = no win

they have gotten wins without him.
I do think he helps obviously, but sometimes he plays 9 minutes (did so agains the Cavs)... if he's the reason why the Spurs are losing they are in a bad place TBH.

[SAGirl]

Patty Mills got burned by Seth Curry ...

[SAGirl]

Pau started playing better D and we started blowing teams out. He got hurt and as much as some may hate him that threw everything off. He can score on just about anyone, great passer and at times can play a little D.

I do think they miss Pau. Frankly I expected Dedmon to pick up minutes in his absence but he's still averaging 12-14. He may be overrated in these boards bc he's a good athlete because Pop hasn't increased his minutes in pau's absence. I like Davis but he's a shooter, just a different player, Pau is a playmaker/scorer etc. It's probably tough to replace the element that he brought. I tend to think that is why Pop went with Lee to start previously.

Pop has to figure out a rotation that works in Pau's absence.

[snickles]

The museum I went to is in Kiev, not in the Chernobyl region. You can take guided tours (not affiliated with the museum, but through tour companies) into the region and visit the city closest to the reactor though I did not. Supposedly, these are safe. How close to the reactor you can get, I can't say. I know you can visit the city right across the lake from it. There were three types of radiation dispersed apparently. One with a half-life of 20 years (dissipated), one of 30 years (just dissipating now) and another that will last several thousand years. There is a population, legal and illegal, that lives close; Something like 180 villages and towns in Soviet Ukraine and Belarus had to be abandoned because of the disaster. When you enter the museum they have this hall with sign after sign from places that are now ghost towns. The disaster released more radiation by a factor of several hundred than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reactor is sealed in a "sarco us" - material placed on all sides to keep in the radiation. The most harrowing part of this things construction was in the hours/first day after the meltdown when the reactor was sinking into the earth. If it sank too far it would be impossible to seal as well it would pollute the underground rivers that run nearby. So, they sent a group of coal miners to dig a tunnel UNDERNEATH an active, sinking reactor so they could fill it with special concrete and build a bottom to the sarco us. Apparently, the temperatures in the tunnel were nightmarish, and the coal miners, who were not an educated lot, often took off their radiation suits to beat the heat. All that did dies within a month of the digging. But they built a bottom on the thing and contained it. Heroes. I may write a dramatisation of this sometime.

Radiation still affects Ukraine. Ukraine has the highest frequency of thyroid cancer in the world (according to the museum). Thyroid cancer is apparently a frequent result of radiation exposure.

I am told much of the Chernobyl region is quite beautiful now as it has been left uninhabited for 30 years and returned to nature. There are still some forests however which were destroyed and left a barren heath though.

thanks for taking the time to type all that out. i have a weird fascination with that whole disaster and all the after effects. i had never heard about the digging underneath it.

i love how once in a while, something fascinating and completely unrelated pops up on this site.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

The hypocrite part you French white flag waving got.

I'm not french or anything close to it

[dabom]

I'm not french or anything close to it

You show tendencies all the time.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

You show tendencies all the time.

I enjoy the French New wave, but that's about as far as it goes

[dabom]

[Proxy]

maybe a lot of the team gave a , and then later, they didn't give as much of a

[BillMc]

thanks for taking the time to type all that out. i have a weird fascination with that whole disaster and all the after effects. i had never heard about the digging underneath it.

i love how once in a while, something fascinating and completely unrelated pops up on this site.

Cheers man

Yeah, it was a fascinating museum. Took me about 2 hours to go through the whole thing. I had never heard of the digging beneath before either, but am now slowly collecting info on it. Very fascinating (and tragic and terrifying) event.

Best, Bill

[BillMc]

Yeah, it was the worst nuclear accident in history, bar none. Fukushima was a glass of spilled milk compared to Chernobyl.

Truth.

[coachmac87]

We haven't look like le contenders all season, maybe on the opening day of the season, but that's about it.

Only ONE team has looked liked a le contender all year....and that's the "best team ever assembled"

So what does this mean exactly?

Nothing

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Only ONE team has looked liked a le contender all year....and that's the "best team ever assembled"

So what does this mean exactly?

Nothing

It is possible to have multiple contenders, I agree that this is the tiest the NBA has been in terms of strong teams but it doesn't change the fact that the Spurs look to be done early in the playoffs. Too much dead weight on the roster that doesn't produce consistently enough.

[BillMc]

I it doesn't change the fact that the Spurs look to be done early in the playoffs. Too much dead weight on the roster that doesn't produce consistently enough.

Who do you forsesee beating us early in the playoffs? I mean if it is a "fact" that they "look to be done" that means you'd favor the opponent over them? So Memphis? OKC? Those are the two most likely opponents. You'd favor them over the Spurs? And in the second round its likely Houston? Have you seen the problems the Rockets have been having lately?

Clips and Dubs are likely on the other side of the Western bracket. So which of all these flawed teams on our side is this harbinger of doom?

The truth is (once again) for all the Spurs problems, every team, except the Dubs has as many or more issues. Even the Cavs we'd be favored over.

Could the Spurs lose in the first round? Sure, especially if somehow the Clippers drop and then get healthy (though I'd still take the Spurs barely). But I think "looks to be done" isn't a realistic assessment of their chances.

[coachmac87]

It is possible to have multiple contenders, I agree that this is the tiest the NBA has been in terms of strong teams but it doesn't change the fact that the Spurs look to be done early in the playoffs. Too much dead weight on the roster that doesn't produce consistently enough.

I was going by your standards regarding GSW being the only le contender...

I do agree the the NBA is watered down...but that also means Spurs are a top 4 team in the league which IMO makes them a le contender..

You don't think so and that's ok. I'm just curious to know who you think is if they aren't and why

[coachmac87]

Who do you forsesee beating us early in the playoffs? I mean if it is a "fact" that they "look to be done" that means you'd favor the opponent over them? So Memphis? OKC? Those are the two most likely opponents. You'd favor them over the Spurs? And in the second round its likely Houston? Have you seen the problems the Rockets have been having lately?

Clips and Dubs are likely on the other side of the Western bracket. So which of all these flawed teams on our side is this harbinger of doom?

The truth is (once again) for all the Spurs problems, every team, except the Dubs has as many or more issues. Even the Cavs we'd be favored over.

Could the Spurs lose in the first round? Sure, especially if somehow the Clippers drop and then get healthy (though I'd still take the Spurs barely). But I think "looks to be done" isn't a realistic assessment of their chances.

+1

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Who do you forsesee beating us early in the playoffs? I mean if it is a "fact" that they "look to be done" that means you'd favor the opponent over them? So Memphis? OKC? Those are the two most likely opponents. You'd favor them over the Spurs? And in the second round its likely Houston? Have you seen the problems the Rockets have been having lately?

Clips and Dubs are likely on the other side of the Western bracket. So which of all these flawed teams on our side is this harbinger of doom?

The truth is (once again) for all the Spurs problems, every team, except the Dubs has as many or more issues. Even the Cavs we'd be favored over.

Could the Spurs lose in the first round? Sure, especially if somehow the Clippers drop and then get healthy (though I'd still take the Spurs barely). But I think "looks to be done" isn't a realistic assessment of their chances.

Rockets have certainly had their share of problems Bill, no question, but I think in a matchup with the Spurs they are going to be a nightmare. I absolutely think Houston has a great shot of upsetting the Spurs, especially if they can hit at least 35% from downtown. Eric Gordan has been injured lately and he was easily their second best player. They've also had it rough scheduling wise but I will agree that the Rockets have come back down to earth in recent weeks.

My issue with the Spurs is that outside of Kawhi there is not one single player you can look at say "Come playoff time, I have faith this guy will deliver". LMA has regressed and our defense is all over the place. We have a lot of minus defenders (if we start TP and Pau, 40% of our starting 5 features some of the worst defenders in the league) and our backcourt is pretty poor.

Yes, I know I'm pessimistic but I actually think this is the weakest Spurs team since 2010 and in any other year they'd be closer to a #5 seed.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I was going by your standards regarding GSW being the only le contender...

I do agree the the NBA is watered down...but that also means Spurs are a top 4 team in the league which IMO makes them a le contender..

You don't think so and that's ok. I'm just curious to know who you think is if they aren't and why

I think the Warriors are a contender and maybe Cleveland but moreso because they play in a horrible conference. I think the elephant in the room about Cleveland is that Bogut's injury and Green's deserved suspension was the biggest catalyst to them winning the le. I think they won't be so fortunate this year.

I think GS is so far ahead of the pack that the Spurs ceiling is the WCF, which isn't terrible to be honest. It's just that going by the Spurs track record, they are the kings of having a momentum shift within a playoff series more than any other team this decade. The number of times we've seen them be in control of a series only to have things fall apart happens far too often. It is what it is, but this year's team is the weakest since 2010. I think Houston is going to be an awful matchup in the second round and if the Clippers are healthy the Spurs will out in 5-6 games. The Spurs lack consistency from their players, and while depth is great in the regular season, the playoffs are all about the superstars. Spurs have Kawhi and a bunch of role players. I don't trust LMA to be there night in and night out. If he's locked in, it's a completely different team, but it was extremely worrisome in Game 2 against OKC last year he had 45 points and the Spurs still lost. That's insane.

[BillMc]

Rockets have certainly had their share of problems Bill, no question, but I think in a matchup with the Spurs they are going to be a nightmare. I absolutely think Houston has a great shot of upsetting the Spurs, especially if they can hit at least 35% from downtown. Eric Gordan has been injured lately and he was easily their second best player. They've also had it rough scheduling wise but I will agree that the Rockets have come back down to earth in recent weeks.

My issue with the Spurs is that outside of Kawhi there is not one single player you can look at say "Come playoff time, I have faith this guy will deliver". LMA has regressed and our defense is all over the place. We have a lot of minus defenders (if we start TP and Pau, 40% of our starting 5 features some of the worst defenders in the league) and our backcourt is pretty poor.

Yes, I know I'm pessimistic but I actually think this is the weakest Spurs team since 2010 and in any other year they'd be closer to a #5 seed.

Thanks for the well-thought-out response. I guess our differing forecasts depend on our opinion of a Spurs-Rockets match-up. I think their lack of defense will be exposed in the playoffs (as it already is tbh) and Spurs take the series in 5, max 6 (if healthy). There's always a chance Harden goes on some tear, but even with that, I'd give them only like a 20% chance to win the series. Perhaps, I am too much the optimist.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Thanks for the well-thought-out response. I guess our differing forecasts depend on our opinion of a Spurs-Rockets match-up. I think their lack of defense will be exposed in the playoffs (as it already is tbh) and Spurs take the series in 5, max 6 (if healthy). There's always a chance Harden goes on some tear, but even with that, I'd give them only like a 20% chance to win the series. Perhaps, I am too much the optimist.

no no Bill, once the Rockets open Game 1 on a 6-0 run I'll be thinking Rocket in 5, you're fine, I am always peering over the edge of the cliff!

[BillMc]

no no Bill, once the Rockets open Game 1 on a 6-0 run I'll be thinking Rocket in 5, you're fine, I am always peering over the edge of the cliff!

Look over the edge all you want, just don't jump my friend.