Reply With Quote
Go Raptors.
eh.
so what you're saying that the players aren' soft but the coach is
spurs not overcoming .4 = soft. they had 6 at the half but fell apart in the 4th quarter much like the spurs did in 2002 when they lead heading into the 4th in virtually every game except for game 6.
Go Raptors.
eh.
lol down only 3 after one qtr 24-27
"I don't think the soft arguement flies."
it sure does fly.
Spurs won games1,2 easily.
Lakers adjust and shutdown the paint, Tim, Tony. Malone pushes Tim so far out of the
paint, he's nearly in the stands, an ineffective jump shooter.
Spurs Lose games 3,4 @Staples.
Game5 is 0.4 loss @SBC
Game6 eliminated @Staples
Spurs were not very good on the road in 03/04.
Winning on the road = tough
3 of the 4 playoff losses to Lakers were @Staples.
Compare above with Robert's 3G to win Game5 last season. Pistons, facing elimination, bounced right back and won Game6 easily @SBC.
So a team losing a series = soft? I don't get it. The Lakers played well that season, and they matched up with the Spurs very well. Parker had no outside shot, and that has nothing to do with softness. You can't shoot the outside jumper, the defense sags in the paint, what are you going to do?
The Spurs, despite winning in 2003 and 2005, has a VERY notable weakness, perimeter shooting. Bowen, Horry, Barry, and Jackson helped somewhat, but the offense do not run through them. In 2004, the Lakers saw that, took some risks in leaving the perimeter players wide open, and paid off. You mentioned that the coach should make some adjustments, perhaps you can give some examples.
pop shoulda figured out a way to get the interior game going in 2004 but duncan of course dissapeared completely going often times 30 minutes without a single ing FG. we saw that same stat in last years finals where the entire nation was ready to call duncan overrated. i dont care how hurt you are or who you are, if you're the leader of your team (I'm referring to 2004 mostly) there is NO ing way you go 30 minutes without a field goal. absolutely inexcusable. and its not about a team losing a series that makes them soft, its about a team controlling the series and clocking, and then falling apart completely mentally and showing an absolute lack of heart and crashing and burning when all is said and done. the pistons were able to rebound from the crushing game 5 loss to the spurs IN SA and the spurs just went away in the 2nd half of game 6 when they should've been playing their hearts out as their season was on the line. same with dallas when we were up 3-1 in the series in 2003 and like a bunch of ups we threw away game 5 oN OUR OWN HOME FLOOR and nearly lost game 6 had it not been for kerr's miracle shooting that saved our asses, otherwise who knows what would've happend in a game 7 situation. don't even get me started on going up 3-1 and losing 4-3. hopefully the spurs can repeat this year, otherwise it'll be a shame to be one of the few champions in basketball that never repeated forever putting them in the bottom of 10th of teams who have won it all
Three of those loses were to a healthy Lakers squad that had a core of three time NBA Champions plus two additional HOF players as added support. While it was a sad time for a Spurs fan, one would be really stretching or totally ignorant of the game equate the only reason for the Spurs losing as them being soft. The forth game was the .4 game where the Spurs main fault was allowing a decent Lakers squad to have a shot for the win.
Before you say Tim is playing much worse with PF than last year, perhaps you need to look at the Spurs record. I would say Tim is measuring his game more, and allowing his teammates to do more. If anything, if Tim is anywhere near what he was last year in the playoffs, come playoff time, the Spurs are much harder to stop, as they have more known and confident options.
oh i agree that it is EXTREMELY impressive that despites tim's nagging injury that the team is still on pace for their best season ever, and considering oru rich history thats pretty damn good, but if tim is shooting 6-9 like he did against NO, thats cool, cuz he shoot a solid %, but if he's gonna go 4-16 night in and night out and not grab boards which is what he seemed to be doing since the AS break, we're gonna be ed against detroit. sheed will eat him alive as will ben wallace. but hopefully like i said, this team gets healthier and we all step up come playoff time.
Tim Duncan sucks right now. It isn't about pacing himself or deferring. He just plain sucks.
What I am saying is you can use the soft lable on any team that does win the NBA le in any given year. , you can use the soft lable on any team that does not overcome any challange on any given night. In the end, it is mostly mindless chatter and BS for those who don't understand the essence of the game called hoops.so what you're saying that the players aren' soft but the coach is
spurs not overcoming .4 = soft. they had 6 at the half but fell apart in the 4th quarter much like the spurs did in 2002 when they lead heading into the 4th in virtually every game except for game 6.
The fact is each year or in each game only one team comes out on top. With this fact in mind, every team except the one that won is soft, or else they would have been the only team left standing. I call scoreboard here!
When you consider the Spurs have THREE RINGS and the Best Record in all of the NBA over the past 7 years, your soft arguement demonstrates it is your knowledge of the game or your perception that is soft.
Disrespect my view as seen through homer glasses all you want. My sight of the undisputed truth of the game says you are the one blind to reality.
Down 8 at half.
I certainly consider you an expert on the subject. Sucking that is, as you certainly don't know jack about much else.
see but if you told me that a certain team would have the best record in the nba over the last 7 years and ONLY won 3 rings then that tells me that something is very wrong. call my perception wrong and blind all you want, but winning 6 of 7 is one thing, but to win 3 out 7 when you are on top of the league is a slight bit of a letdown
bwahahha
sequ you need your own "this week in the NBA with sequ" show
haha
down 3 now 59-62
Last I remember the "Soft" Pistons melted when it all counted in game #7.
And the big bad 2004 Lakers, the same team that took out the "Soft" Spurs suddenly turned to "Jello" as they were taken out in four straight by the Pistons.
As I said, any team that loses can be considered soft, as they did not bring what it took to win in a given game or series.
And as such, it would take one very soft in the mellon to argue that the Spurs are soft when compared to the rest of the NBA, as they have as many rings as any team in the last ten years AND have won more than any team in the entire league in that span.
The Spur are soft flies, my ass!
Nice tap dancing.
I guess you missed that the Lakers and the Pistons both had and/or are having a decent runs over that time.
I guess you would go BACK AND FORTH debating that either the Lakers OR the Celtics were soft as they alternated dominating the rest of the league. LOL!
In NBA History, only the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have had a better 7 year stretches than the recent Spurs. Considering the Spurs are the new kids on the block AND the only team of those mentioned with a decent chance to soon add to their hardware, I would say it is not all bad for Spurs fans.
As I said, call my view blind homerism all you want. Scoreboard says you are the one who is blind to fact.
and yet they only managed 3 rings in those 7 years with arguably weaker compe ion. also during the last 10 years no team has dominated the league as much as the spurs. detroit didn't become hot till their 1st ring, MJ left the bulls, and shaq left the lakers, leaving SA as the only team with any true consistency and yet again, they only got 3 rings. you bring that stat to anyone and ask them to guess how many championships a team that has the best record over the last TEN years they'd be guessing AT LEAST 5 rings not 3Nice tap dancing.
I guess you missed that the Lakers and the Pistons both had and/or are having a decent runs over that time.
I guess you would go BACK AND FORTH debating that either the Lakers OR the Celtics were soft as they alternated dominating the rest of the league. LOL!
In NBA History, only the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have had a better 7 year stretches than the recent Spurs. Considering the Spurs are the new kids on the block AND the only team of those mentioned with a decent chance to soon add to their hardware, I would say it is not all bad for Spurs fans.
As I said, call my view blind homerism all you want. Scoreboard says you are the one who is blind to fact.
What year is this?
ok so next time the mavs fan get angry when we dont give them a chance in the playoffs i'll let them know you allowed them to use that excuse
What year is this?
2006 is a whole new year and this team is on pace to do better than ever, the spurs are still one of the toughest teams in the league but i just don't think that they are consistently mentally tough as they have a lot more lapses then they should
Shaq just left the Lakers two years ago AND landed on a decent team. Detroit is working on their 5th year in a row of 50+ wins AND perhaps their third trip to the finals in a row. And the Spurs have almost completly overhauled their roster three times over the last 7 years. Only Duncan remains the same from 1999. Only Duncan, Tony, Manu and Bowen return from 2003. And with far fewer changes than they have made in any one year in quite some time, they still added Finley, NVE and Oberto who together average over 48 minutes per game.
If anyone guessed 5 or more for how many championships were won by the best team in any of the 3 major american pro sports over the last 10 years, they would prove to be as ignorant and uninformed as you are being exposed as.
The Yankees have won 4 WS les in the past 10 years, yet have only managed a meager 2 since the Spurs won their first NBA le in 1999, and none since 2000. The Patriots at 3 and the Broncos at 2 are the only teams with more than 1 Super Bowl Championships in the last 10 years. And in the NBA the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs are all tied with 3 les each over the past 10 years.
Considering the Spurs have the best chance of adding to their hardware of all the teams in pro sports, your disrespect of the team you claim to support exposes you as foolish at best.
see thats where YOU'RE IGNORANT because once again, the team may have overhauled their roster fairly often and detroit may have had several 50 win seasons but san antonio was still THE BEST TEAM over the last 10 year span in ALL OF MAJOR SPORTS. so once again, winning only 3 les in the LAST TEN YEARS would baffle someone when reading that stat of them havign the best record in ALL of the major sports. your homerism is being exposed to max, now please stfuShaq just left the Lakers two years ago AND landed on a decent team. Detroit is working on their 5th year in a row of 50+ wins AND perhaps their third trip to the finals in a row. And the Spurs have almost completly overhauled their roster three times over the last 7 years. Only Duncan remains the same from 1999. Only Duncan, Tony, Manu and Bowen return from 2003. And with far fewer changes than they have made in any one year in quite some time, they still added Finley, NVE and Oberto who together average over 48 minutes per game.
If anyone guessed 5 or more for how many championships were won by the best team in any of the 3 major american pro sports over the last 10 years, they would prove to be as ignorant and uninformed as you are being exposed as.
The Yankees have won 4 WS les in the past 10 years, yet have only managed a meager 2 since the Spurs won their first NBA le in 1999, and none since 2000. The Patriots at 3 and the Broncos at 2 are the only teams with more than 1 Super Bowl Championships in the last 10 years. And in the NBA the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs are all tied with 3 les each over the past 10 years.
Considering the Spurs have the best chance of adding to their hardware of all the teams in pro sports, your disrespect of the team you claim to support exposes you as foolish at best.
It would only baffle an idiot. With the way you have been exposed we all understand your confusion. LOL!
Well, the Red Wings have a chance to win their 4th SC in that time frame(though 95% of you don't consider hockey a major sport)...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
