Reply With Quote
Thanks a bunch! I hate seeing a game being decided by injuries. Hopefully its a close game but the spurs take it towards the end.
Mason Jr. is probable, everyone else is okay.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=23
Thanks a bunch! I hate seeing a game being decided by injuries. Hopefully its a close game but the spurs take it towards the end.
You don't think deep down that the players on the Spurs feel differently than what they say publicly going into games like this? They wouldn't be the compe ors they are if they didn't. I'm not suggesting they treat this like a finals games, but I'd imagine when you play 82 regular season games every year and you've been in the league a lot of years, like most of the Spurs have been, the majority of them are monotonous. So when you play a contender like the Celtics, whom you only play twice are a year and it's nationally televised and hyped up almost a week in advance, naturally I'd suspect this to mean a little something extra.
This is the mentality of many of you people: I'd like to win, but only on terms that more than likely won't permit the Spurs to beat a team the caliber of the Celtics. Meaning, limit every player's key minutes, even if only playing them but a handful more than their averages would significantly upgrade the chances of winning this game. That's great logic. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either you want to see this game treated with more meaning than your average regular game, or you're essentially conceding a loss.
Last edited by TD 21; 12-03-2009 at 07:06 PM.
I think the Spurs will blow Boston out.
Interesting that you can tell so much about my mentality from two sentences. I guess you took advanced classes in psychology as well as math.
You're en led to your opinion, but no matter how closely you hold that opinion it does not become fact. I find your mentality interesting. The mentality of a person convinced that his insight into how to maximize the team's performance is superior to that of the proven expert who holds the job.
I have never said we should play the starters low minutes. Regular minutes are fine with me. There are two things that will get the win versus the Celtics and playing the starters long minutes is not one of them. Those things are good team defense and rebounding. If we do those things well and play everyone regular minutes we have a good chance at winning.
This is just a bunch of BS. There is nothing that suggest that this team needs this win for their confidence or that a loss would hurt their confidence in the long run. Regular season wins have NEVER dictated anything confidence-wise. Just look at the 2008 playoffs. We had gotten crushed by Phoenix at the beginning of April only to dismiss them in 5 games. And what about the second round? Up to game 3 we had gotten crushed three straight times by New Orleans only to finish them off in 7 games. Your confidence theory is as stupid as your post count theory.It's not about not playing hard (that's never been a problem in the Duncan era), it's about actually treating this game as more than just one of 82: because it is. Whether the Spurs or you want to admit it or not, it is. This is bigger than playing the Kings, even if it only counts for one game in the standings. When the Spurs were at their peak and were the team to beat, games like this, regular season / early winter didn't mean much. But this isn't 03-07 and the Spurs are no longer the hunted; they're the hunter. I don't care what they've accomplished in the path, this particular version of the team hasn't had a truly significant win yet. This would be one.
It's not about sending messages, either. It's about confidence and psyche and this team leaving the arena tonight knowing that they can beat an elite team. I'm so sick of the defeatist/deferential at ude that's gone on the past two years with this team. They speak of wanting to win another championship, then they roll over virtually every time they face an elite team.
Two reasons.Again, why can't they play that many minutes one time? Would they die? Old men like Bryant, Nowitzki and Pierce do it regularly and yet still have enough gas left in the tank to make significant contributions in the playoffs. I'm not suggesting that the Spurs do that, but certain games you play to win moreso than you do just to see how much you can get away with. This is one of those games.
The Spurs are not going to win big games by playing the Big 3 big minutes. They are going to win by playing disciplined defense and being active on the boards. This takes a team effort from everyone. Again, if we play them their regular minutes and do these things they have a good shot at winning.
Big minutes for Parker, Duncan and Manu are simply not the same as the other players you listed. All three of them are at much greater risk of injury. Parker is coming off a full summer of basketball and has already injured his ankle early in the year. Risk for re-injury goes way up as the minutes increase. Furthermore, because of the way Parker plays, a fatigued Parker late in the game is about half as effective as a Parker that has played 30-35 minutes. Manu not playing big minutes should be obvious. We all know that Manu is going to play like Manu, so if you put that together with long minutes there is a very high risk of him re-aggravating the muscle strain he just got over. Duncan's knee does not need any more minutes than what is necessary.
I've seen it a lot on this board, so I'm used to it.
Proven expert? Pop is just a coach. Jackson has an entirely different mentality/style than Pop and he's won 6 more championships than Pop, so by your logic what does that make him?
The reality is you have to adapt. This isn't 03-07 anymore, the Spurs aren't the team to beat and they can no longer get away with limiting the minutes of their key players and expecting to beat elite or even near elite teams. So which one is it, play the key players extended minutes for one game (after 3 days off, no less), or essentially concede? Those are the options.
This is not an opinion, it's fact: The regular minutes the Spurs key players play are low in comparison to every other team's key players in the NBA. So, yes, you are in effect saying "play the key players low minutes".
I never said there was anything to suggest, I'm simply saying that I think it's important. And if you look back in NBA history (I believe there was a recent thread on this) you'll find that it is. In essence, if you can't beat elite teams in the regular season, how will you expect to in a playoff series? A losing record in the regular season against elite teams is telling. The difference then was that Spurs team had been together for a long time and had a history of winning big games. What's this group won together? Even the core, they haven't won a big game in (by their and elite team standards) a long time. Post count theory?
This is nothing more than cliche nonsense. The Spurs are an excellent rebounding team and are starting to re-establish themselves as something resembling an excellent defensive team. If Pierce or Allen plays over 40 minutes and Rondo plays close to 40 minutes and none of the Spurs key players exceed 36-37 minutes, they will likely lose this game. So let me get this straight: don't, under any cir stances, play the big three extended minutes once in the regular season, then once the playoffs roll around expect them to be able to handle them every game despite not being used to playing that much? Against the Celtics and against the Lakers, as well as a few other random games, their minutes should be extended. And here's the other thing, if this team loses more than they win against good teams and ends up with a 4th or 5th seed, they're not winning a championship. I don't care how rested or healthy they are.
Last edited by TD 21; 12-03-2009 at 07:33 PM.
Should be a great game with the TD and KG match up like always
I look back in history and see a Spurs team that beat New Orleans in a series after losing three straight games to them, beat Phoenix in a series right after getting crushed by them late in the season and beat Cleveland in the finals after losing BOTH regular season meeting to them. Your stance is baseless and holds about as much water colander.
So now the Big 3 will somehow lose their confidence because they have not won a big game in a while? Please be serious.
I'm really getting sick and ing tired of your generalizations. I never said "don't play the big three extended minutes ever"...I said it was not necessary for this game. Whether or not we play them long minutes will not matter if we play well defensively and win the rebounding battle. It just won't.This is nothing more than cliche nonsense. The Spurs are an excellent rebounding team and are starting to re-establish themselves as something resembling an excellent defensive team. If Pierce or Allen plays over 40 minutes and Rondo plays close to 40 minutes and none of the Spurs key players exceed 36-37 minutes, they will likely lose this game. So let me get this straight: don't, under any cir stances, play the big three extended minutes once in the regular season, then once the playoffs roll around expect them to be able to handle them every game despite not being used to playing that much? Against the Celtics and against the Lakers, as well as a few other random games, their minutes should be extended. And here's the other thing, if this team loses more than they win against good teams and ends up with a 4th or 5th seed, they're not winning a championship. I don't care how rested or healthy they are.
As far as seeding goes...you might as well slit your wrists now. We are probably looking at a third seed at the highest and I think that is probably unlikely. This team has a lot of adversity ahead and a lot of things have to go right for them to win it all again. This biggest of these is health...which is achieved by being smart with the older/oft injured players minutes.
So yeah...we should have taken Blair's minutes away and given them to one of the starters.
Maybe should have taken Mason's away instead...
Agreed.
Different team, different time. I don't give a flying about 03-08 anymore. Clearly, this has been a team in transition since then and if you can't see that, then you're both blind and delusional. Look back at the history of the league: if you can't beat good teams in the regular season, then you're not winning a championship. I don't give a if they win a round or two.
Who knows? I see the interviews and I'm not sure these guys genuinely believe in this team anymore. And why should they? Almost every time they've played a good team on national TV the past few years they've not only lost, but embarrassed themselves. They'll never say it, but deep down they know it's going to probably take a near miracle for this team to win another championship.
In effect, you did. Because if not in this game, then when? Against the ing Clippers? Great analysis, genius: the Spurs were a +23 on the boards, had 10 more FGA, held the Celtics to 46% shooting and 96 points (both well below their averages) and STILL lost. Clearly, it didn't come down to rebounding and defending; it came down to playing the proper lineups. Not surprisingly that didn't happen and predictably the Spurs lost. Guys were yo-yo'd in and out like it was a ing preseason or All-Star game. No rhythm or chemistry was being allowed to get established. THAT is why this game was lost. Because despite the turnovers, ty officiating and putrid shooting, they still had a chance at the end.
I agree about the seeding, but that just tied into my larger point. You can have everyone fresh and healthy for the playoffs all you want. If this team goes in as a 4th seed they aren't even coming close to winning a championship, which is supposed to be the goal, something you and many others on this board have apparently forgotten.
If you are talking about the 2008 playoff series against NO, each team won at home up until game 7...Spurs never lost 3 straight at any point.
This really is quite amusing...
Maybe it's just a case of bloated expectations and a sense of en lement for people who didn't experience life before Duncan, but what the were you really expecting?
Holt departing from his frugal ways and assembling one of the most talented teams the Spurs have ever had wasn't a guarantee of a le or Finals appearance; even if everything broke their way and they managed to stay healthy and playing their best ball at the right time, there'd still be a chance they'd come of short..
You're not going to see what this team's ceiling is until the majority of the regular-season has been played, and it'd be foolish to make wholesale judgments before the team's played even a third of the season; building chemistry, trust and a rotation takes time.
The Spurs aren't likely to do better than the third seed, and that's fine.
Ideal? No.
Fine? It has to be.
See, extending the minutes of a guy who has degenerative condition with his knee leads to what happened last year. Throwing caution to the wind with Manu and his minutes leads to what happened the last two years. And without those two at their best at the end of the year, this year's going to end a lot like the last two years.
The Celtics loss was nothing to fret over. The Spurs still match up well with them. They're a disjointed team trying to find their way individually and collectively, yet, they still managed to give themselves a shot to win after some piss-poor execution and focus; Boston's a Championship-caliber team that's been together for a while now. They're leaps and bounds ahead of the Spurs in terms of continuity and cohesion.
So, on a night like tonight, when two teams that match-up as well as they do come together, it's not surprising to see a Spurs team lose the way they did; you couldn't have honestly watched that game and thought that the Celtics were demonstrably better and that the Spurs didn't have plenty to do with their own demise. They're a team in the early stages of a building process that, given health, will be right up there with Boston at the end of the season. They're not there yet; there's no guarantee they ever will be either.
The Spurs are who I thought they were; their season's ending has still yet to be determined..
Or it could be a case of fans feeling passionate about their team, and expressing themselves in as many ways as there are people.
Get over yourself, Mr Know-it-all.
I gave you history already. I guess only certain history matters.
Aww...look at that. You bolded it just so you would look even more stupid.In effect, you did. Because if not in this game, then when? Against the ing Clippers? Great analysis, genius: the Spurs were a +23 on the boards, had 10 more FGA, held the Celtics to 46% shooting and 96 points (both well below their averages) and STILL lost. Clearly, it didn't come down to rebounding and defending; it came down to playing the proper lineups. Not surprisingly that didn't happen and predictably the Spurs lost. Guys were yo-yo'd in and out like it was a ing preseason or All-Star game. No rhythm or chemistry was being allowed to get established. THAT is why this game was lost. Because despite the turnovers, ty officiating and putrid shooting, they still had a chance at the end.
If you want to argue that Manu should have been in there late or that Duncan didn't get back in the game fast enough in the 4th, I would allow you that. Otherwise, lineups had nothing to do with us losing. In fact, the second team brought us back in the game in both early and late in the game.
We played one good quarter of defense...and that was the 4th quarter. Boston was on a 100 pt pace through the end of the third. Boston also shoots 49% for the season...so you are(once again) stretching by saying that 46% is well below their average. 14 of our 18 turnovers were in the first three quarters. We missed ten free throws and went 2-16 from distance. These are the reasons why we lost.
Well..sorry. We're not gonna be a top 3 seed. The door is that way...see ya.I agree about the seeding, but that just tied into my larger point. You can have everyone fresh and healthy for the playoffs all you want. If this team goes in as a 4th seed they aren't even coming close to winning a championship, which is supposed to be the goal, something you and many others on this board have apparently forgotten.
It’s important for teams that are trying to rebuild or that want to be in the mix at the end of the regular season to take advantage of early season games against top teams and push your players and try new match ups and rotations. The season is long play hard against top teams and rest and give your key players less minutes against the lower seed teams.
Games against the Lakers
01/12/2010
02/08/2010
04/14/2010
Boston again on
03/28/2010
Play these games like the playoffs there is no way we not win against these two teams in the regular season and think we can beat them in the playoffs, the Spurs are not in the position to just turn it on at any time any more.
Stop saying its early its early for them also.
This game was a breakout game for Blair and very important to get this guys' confidence going. If I had to pick either winning but Blair never seeing a minute of action or losing like we did and Blair busting out, I'd pick the latter every time. The game itself is only 1 of 82 and its very early, so who cares having Blair playing confidently will be infinitely more important to this teams' success than "beating a contender" in a game everyone will have forgotten about 2 months from now.
I was told to speak to you so I can join your conspiracy group. I dont really care about what its about, I just honestly want to conspire. I mistook what you said earlier...I thought Benefactor was the leader of said conspiracy group. But he said it was you. I dont really care who is who, because thats probably another conspiracy,...I just want to be in a cool group so I can brainwash people and not be alone.Teach me your ways.
I worry more about RJ's confidence...Blair is too young to have any self-doubt...
Blair froze Dyess' ass to the bench.
If only he hadn't tipped that rebound in.
Was this a test? And a true one? Of course on both accounts but should it have that much impact on how we view the Spurs? I think not. Yes, they lost to an elite team but in doing so their FTs were abysmal and their TOs were way too high. They have total control over the first and Boston did have some input on the second but all in all I thought I saw some good things coming out of this game. Their ability to fight through adversity and gut it out to be in a position to win after playing the 1st Q so badly and the beginning of the 3rd Q in similar fashion shows what this team can do. Given time they will jell and start to win this type of game.
The question that is still bothering me is why RJ can't seem to get involved. I still hope it is about getting familar with the system, getting the proper spacing so he can be effective or getting good chemistry with TP and TD. As of now I'm disappointed with what he is doing when teamed with TP and TD. When samll ball comes into play the spacing seems to improve dramatically and he really gets it going.
Still a work in progress and I'm going to let it be like that until mid Jan or so. If no or little improvement has been shown thenbut I think this ship is about to get turned around.
I've got no problem with fans having passion and getting pissed off or bent out of shape after a bad outing or tough loss; none what-so-ever..
I do, however, find it pretty amusing (laughable, really) when just about anyone who's been around long enough to have witnessed the '03 and '04 seasons (where there was similar roster turnover) starts jumping off cliffs or making wholesale judgments 16 games into the season. , even if you're new to the Spurs, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know just how difficult is to incorporate this many new players.
So I, Mr. Know-it-all, will not be getting over myself any time soon. I'm going to continue to view this team as having two of their top three players as being older with tenuous health issues, and I'm not going to be surprised that the integration of key, big-time, contributors is only going to be made harder, and take longer, because the lack of stability they have coming in; Tim, Tony and Manu aren't at the top of their game and/or in rhythm and on the same page. They're not adding ingredients to a ready-made mix, they're trying to find out if what they already had in the cupboard hasn't expired and how to use the ingredients they just picked up go with what they've got.
Passion and ignorance are too often confused; there's nothing wrong with passion, so long as you're not the 'ass' in it..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions