The problem with the Spurs is that their bench and role players have gotten old and their skills are declining. The big 3 is still big. But the rest are average or below average now. And that is why teams like the Mavs are passing the Spurs.
This is also the first time they feel en led to a championship. Like you said, they have the personnel to win the trophy, but they're playing like it doesn't matter, that they can just coast through the season and probably the playoffs. Once they realize that this level of play won't get them crap, then they'll be a team to watch.
So in mathematical terms, the softs can be factored out and you are basically saying:
Execution = WIN
NO Execution = LOSS
Well you're one genius, lemme tell you.
I think this applies to most teams in any sport.
Face it Spur fans your team is declining. It happens to all teams that win championships. Be prepared for the "rebuilding era" it happened to the Lakers & Bulls, and it will happen to the Spurs. Be prepared for the ol' Domique days in San Antonio. I think the Spurs will be OK this year but, After this season that light might dim a little more.
Z YEAH
This is true.
I wouldn't say that the Spurs are declined fast or anything, or drastically, but they are NOT as good as the 05 team. I thought last season was a really good opportunity for the Spurs to repeat, considering once they were to pass the Mavs, they would have an easier Western Conference Finals and beating Miami wouldn't be as tough as beating Dallas. I like how the Spurs match up against Miami.
Z YEAH
That's a sweet sig, but don't plan on beating us in the playoffs anytime soon. A declining Spurs team (if that's what's happening) will still be good enough to take out the rest of the NBA, minus one or two squads with whom it will be close. Your Laaaaaaakers still haven't reached that point yet. Sorry*.
* I'm not really sorry.
My God.
All I am trying to say is that if they did not depend entirely on their execution to win games, they would win games in which they don't execute on both sides of the floor, BUT because they are soft, when they are not executing, they simply just plunder, and have no other ways to win. It's exactly why they lost to the Laker several years ago; the game in which Fishers hit his lucky shot was a stab in the gut for them, and they lost as a result. But they WERE the better team, in fact they were by many considered the best team in the league. They should not have lost. But they did. Why? Because they didn't have the mental toughness (they were soft) and, as I said before this is what keeps them from winning 2,3,4 championships in a row. They do not have to execute to win, they just lack the toughness, both physcially, to impose their will on the opposing team, and mentally, to not dwell on the unfortunate events (such as fishers shot), and move along.
I merely stated what I thought was the obvious. Your turning into a math problem.
When people come on here and they say, "The Spurs lost because they did not execute", they obviously mean that on a general level they did not execute in a partuclar area or maybe both areas, it could mean defensively, it could mean offensively, or it could mean both. But even if the Spurs did not execute, there were without any doubt plays that they did execute, they just went unnoticed as a result of the heavy burden of the loss.
Have you ever heard anyone say the "Spurs did not execute" in an area(s), even though they won? Generally, they may have played bad say, offensively, but what if the game (that may decide that the outcome of a series) is won by one point, by a three point shot from say Robert Horry, who had went 5/30 prior to that one shot? The Spurs, as a team still did not execute, generally speaking, but that one single play, does it change that fact? And, was the one three pointer decided purely by execution or was it decided by mental toughness that allowed him to ingore his terrible shooting percentage in the heat of the moment of the winning shot? It is toughness; and from a general perspective it was this one instance of mental toughness by this one single player that allowed the Spurs to win a bad offensive game, and not to mention Robert Horries individual struggles from behind the arc.
That is just one case of NOT executing as a team and STILL being able to come away with a victory as a result of mental toughness (which is something that this current team has not shown)
Last edited by Ronaldo McDonald; 01-04-2007 at 09:55 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
