oh Jim, I know you didn't just ask him that question
ah sh!t
Go Spurs...
Do we not have a championship team???? Did we build that team last year???? Nuff said. So what if we did not get Kidd, I did not want him anyway. Nesterovic is better than DRob was last year, we will be better than last year, we are the team to beat.
Jimmy, everything you said is true and would be great if the Lakers weren't vastly improved.
lets see them play together
if talent on paper won rings kings would have won a couple by now.
GW,
now you are going tell us that the lakers are vastly improved? They still don't have a bench.
Malone slightly better than Horry
Payton much better than Fisher against rest of league but not so much against Spurs.
They still haven't really addressed their problems with us:
1) they don't have anyone that can stop Tim, not even their double team
2) they have no one that can keep up with Manu
3) they have no perimeter defense
4) it is yet to be seen if Payton can slow Tony's offense. In fact this may be better for us. Tony always seems to get up for the best PGs in the league. I always thought Tony was kinda lazy when playing Fisher. Maybe he didn't respect him enough.
So what if the lakers beat up on everyone else. I'll take my chances with this playoff matchup
1 seed - la
2 seed - sa
They might break down or apart before the WCF.
I am not the only one who thinks this
espn.go.com/nba/columns/h...82058.html
One question for you: IF we did agree with all your "holding pattern failure" and "IF trade" theories, would you stop bringing them up all the time? (In other words, stop living in the past)
Go Spurs...
gospurs, I am sorry. I stopped reading after you wrote "Malone is slightly better than Horry".
GW,
Everything in the post refers to how the lakers match up against us. I couldn't give a what they do against the rest of the league.
Malone vs us last 4 years not as good as Horry vs us last 4 years
Go Spurs...
Oh come on gospurs, you don't have any credible black ballas in your post who Cedric The Entertainer likes. How can we take you seriously?
Horry was great against us in the playoffs last year.
Cassius, knock yourself out.
Horry also played heavy minutes for the Lakers last season. In SA he's looking at 15 per game, if that. Go ahead and be narrowminded as you always are, but he'd be a great addition to the Spurs' bench.
If the Spurs could find a balance between finding enough minutes to keep Horry happy as well as viable come playoff time, go ahead and sign him to take Ferry's role and give the Spurs some legit height off the bench in the frontcourt.
GW,
and Malone was great against us during the last 4 regular seasons?
CC,
I like Cedric especially after his appearance on the country grammer CD. What about Jax?
Go Spurs...
gospurs, don't you think adding two 20-point scorers to the Lakers will make them a better tem?
Question.
yes,
adding two 20 point scorers will definitely make the lakers better, but I don't think Malone will average 20 next year. He will not get 20 against us unless snaq is injured.
Payton is the wild card, if Kobe is willing to share shot attempts then they could both average 20pts.
But how tired is Payton going to be at the end of Spurs - laker games after chasing Tony around all game and having Tony covering him all game long? Throw in Manu and Jax with our help defence and that spells a long night.
Look at what the Bowen, Manu, Jax combo does to Kobe. He said it himself, the Spurs just wear you down. What is our mantra, we just want to grind (interesting term - refers to physical contact) the other team down.
How much time the rookies get to develop will determine how much gas the 4 HOFs have during the playoffs.
I just think our youth is a big advantage. Especially if we run on the lakers. Gary, Kobe and SF (whoever) may be able to keep up with us but I don't see snaq and karl running very much.
Go Spurs...
gospurs, you are preaching to the choir. Most of your points I covered in my "We Need to Run on the Lakers" thread about two weeks ago.
Interestingly enough, Malone & Payton said they want to run next season!
Ghost - The Holting pattern would have worked if Kidd and Zo decided on SA instead. It was a gamble worth trying. And they still won a ring in spite of the pattern targeting 2003-04.
Some Spurs fans were dreaming of O'Neal or Brand when neither was remotely realistic, or bought into the Reef trade rumors. None of that was happening. The best chance was Kidd, but Jourmana wears the pants in the family and didn't want to leave NYC.
Rasho will help on O but he's too soft in position D. Keep in mind though that the off-season isn't done. Evaluate after the summer ends. Maybe they add Spree, or Pippen, ain't over yet.
Keep in mind that champions have had difficulty attracting free agents, LA until this summer when they got beat got nowhere in free agency as a champion. Players want to be seen as difference makers not coattail riders. As one example, after Utah was eliminated Malone said he didn't want to join the le team.
Spurs fans thought le, Duncan and no taxes would be huge magnets, but 1st option touches, big money and solo spotlight were far more important to O'Neal, big city far more important to Jourmana and so on. San Antonio doesn't represent a great fit for that many FA's. Champs and small city work against you, not for you.
Good points and good first post, Sky. Welcome.Keep in mind that champions have had difficulty attracting free agents, LA until this summer when they got beat got nowhere in free agency as a champion. Players want to be seen as difference makers not coattail riders. As one example, after Utah was eliminated Malone said he didn't want to join the le team.
Spurs fans thought le, Duncan and no taxes would be huge magnets, but 1st option touches, big money and solo spotlight were far more important to O'Neal, big city far more important to Jourmana and so on. San Antonio doesn't represent a great fit for that many FA's. Champs and small city work against you, not for you.
What I don't get are the Spurs fans who are crying that the team couldn't land Kidd, JO or Brand. Those three were long shots coming into the offseason. They were far from "locks" like some big pundit led people to believe.
So this offseason where you replace your center and upgrade your bench -- it is hard to look at it as a faliure. Without the money gained by the holting patter, you'd have a bad center and no bench.
Believe.
2
Right, Sky.
And for those reasons, I was against the Holt-ing Pattern from the start.
We would've been better served to sign free agent talent or make a trade for a star along the way.
Go said: "Malone slightly better than Horry. Payton much better than Fisher against rest of league but not so much against Spurs."
Strongly disagree with this. The Spurs man up D schemes were predicated on Fisher's total inability to create off the dribble or pass, Horry's inability to shoot or be a moving threat off the dribble. Massive upgrade to Payton and Malone. Faster, stronger, a threat in spot up or dribble penetration and far FAR more talented.
Fisher is one of the worst starting 1's in the league. Hits 3's and literally can't do anything else. Payton can create off the dribble, penetrate and dish, finish, run transition, use his height for effective post entry passes and challenge them defensively, goes over screens on D and recovers man. In other words, everything Fisher can't do, Payton can. Well.
The Spurs game planned specifically against those Fisher weaknesses. Replacing Fisher with Payton blows the 2003 Spurs D schemes against LA completely. Payton makes a HUGE difference.
As for Malone. Horry shot 2-39 from 3 and was a non-factor on both ends. Malone is a much more consistent shooter, a better ball handler that can create off the dribble, a much better passer and rebounder, mroe efefctive screener, more of a threat in pick and roll and pick and pop, and can hold position low block better than Horry.
The Spurs could play very physical defense on Kobe and limit LA ball movement because none of his teammates were threats to create off the dribble or pass. Now he has two more in Payton and Malone. Big change.
They still haven't really addressed their problems with us:
1) they don't have anyone that can stop Tim, not even their double team
Double will be more effective with Malone since he can hold position and then you bring the doubler in. Still very weak, Duncan will get his, but not as weak as Horry last year.
2) They have no one that can keep up with Manu
With Payton by his side, Kobe can focus more on his man now rather than covering for Fisher. And Payton takes a ton of roles off Kobe's plate to increase his energy level on both ends.
3) they have no perimeter defense
Disagree. Perimeter D sucked last year because it was way too slow in Fisher and Fox. Kobe, Payton and George are all quick laterally and long and can defend 2-3 positions. Malone is also very good at creating steals. Shaq has already lost 15 pounds this summer and will be more mobile and a better shot blocker.
4) it is yet to be seen if Payton can slow Tony's offense. In fact this may be better for us. Tony always seems to get up for the best PGs in the league. I always thought Tony was kinda lazy when playing Fisher. Maybe he didn't respect him enough.
No reason to respect Fisher defensively. Payton got burned in penetration two years ago because he funnelled TP into Vin Baker and Parker hit layups and floaters all night. Now Payton funnels Parker into Shaq. And Malone is much better at showing in pick and roll than Shaq or Horry.
Payton and Maloen are old but still very talented, durable and believe it or not speed upgrades.
Ghost - The question is, what realistic alternative was available? You can come up with possible trade scenarios but what was actually on the table?
The Reef rumor was just that. Bab said he wasn't going to make moves just to clear salaries out, he wanted talent back. And in the midst of a le run, SA couldn't afford to do that.
So what would you have had the Spurs do?
sky,
excellent post.
But I disagree with your analysis of Spurs man D. I don't think the Spurs planned specifically agianst Fisher's weakness. I think the Spurs keyed on krybe and snaq like they always do, willing to take chances with Fisher and Horry shot.
While Gary is an upgrade over Fisher in the shooting department and creating his own shot, Malone's shot against the Spurs has been decreasing steadly over the past 3-4 years and Horry's only this past season.
Sounds to me like you are a pretty knowledgable lakers fan.
Go Spurs...
Sky, I endoresed rumored deals that would've gotten us Payton, Sprewell, Mercer and Artest along the way.
Pop only knows what deals were also out there or ones that could've been pursued.
Go - Thanks. Yes I'm a Lakers fan, I follow the league very closely and picked the Spurs to win it all back in February. I respect San Antonio, they're a very solid team that plays great defense.
Good point, the D focus was on Shaq and Kobe, so I'll rephrase on Fisher. imo his glaring weaknesses enabled the Spurs to play the defense they did. With Payton now in his place, SA can't run with that D scheme again because LA has three guys that can create off the dribble, pass, penetrate and finish instead of one. Much much harder to defend, you can't just take out Kobe to stop the ball movement now.
Kobe also now gets to work off the ball and has a point that can draw the defense and then find Kobe, Shaq, Malone, or finish on his own in the halfcourt or in transition. Fisher could never hope to do any of that. Fish is the worst 1 in the league in transition.
Malone will get more open looks in LA than he ever did in Utah. The only Jazz scorers were perimeter players. Duncan has to protect inside against Shaq and penetration while Malone spots up elbow. Can put Rasho on Malone instead, but that can put Tim in foul trouble guarding Shaq.
Against LA this year Duncan could completely ignore the LA 4. Horry got wide open uncontested looks, the Spurs dared him to shoot. Do that with Malone he'll light you up. You have to put Malone in an LA context now playing alongside Payton, Kobe and Shaq, instead of Stockton, DeShawn Stevenson and Ostertag.
Ghost - A lot of those deals involved giving up Parker, I'm not sure the Spurs would have been willing to do that.
Sky, the Spurs were unwilling to do any deals that meant taking on more salary or a contract ending past 2003. That limits the options of bringing in a second star for the now and future, don't you think?
Question.
Ghost - Sure it does. But my question remains, were the Spurs willing to give up young talent like Parker to get more expensive talent?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote