Reply With Quote
If it doesn't happen this year (and I don't think it will) they will never win with their current group.
Now that the Spurs have clinched the West, I started thinking about this. It appears to me that the Spurs have seemingly become the 8,000 pound nemesis for the Mavs. I would say that no other team has been as frustrating for them to overcome throughout the years than San Antonio. Don't believe me, check this chronology.
2001 - Spurs the league's best record (4th time in franchise history), setting up a conference semifinals playoff series against the Mavs. Spurs take series 4-1.
2003 - Spurs and Mavs both finish the season with 60-22 records. However by virtue of their winning the regular season series between the two teams, the Spurs take the division and the top seed. Spurs go on to win the conference semifinals matchup between the two teams, 4-2.
2006 - After years of running and gunning, the Mavs borrow a page out of the Spurs playbook. They hired Avery Johnson as head coach and added former Spurs scout Joe Prunty as an assistant. Mavs change their entire philosophy and begin concentrating on defense. However, as they look across the court at their nemesis, they see some old familiar faces - former Mavs Nick Van Exel and Michael Finley, who conincidentally is still being paid by Mavs owner, Mark Cuban.
Both teams go on to post 60+ win seasons this year and wage a season-long battle for both the division le and the top seed in the conference The Spurs are on track to record a franchise record in wins and looking to defend their NBA le.
With the playoffs approaching and an almost certain semifinals matchup between Spurs and Mavs awaiting, will this be the year the Mavs finally successfully scale "Mount San Antonio" and find playoff success? Why or why not?
Count me in as one who believes the Mavs will certainly limp away with more disappointment.
Don't you love cliffhangers!
If it doesn't happen this year (and I don't think it will) they will never win with their current group.
The Mavs can't take Spurs in a 7 game series, the inevitable WCSF matchup will be a heartbreaking loss for Mavs fans. They had a great season, but they don't have what it takes to beat the Spurs in the playoffs. I hope Finley lights them up like a pinball machine and NVE hits some dagger shots. That irony would be the cherry on top for Cuban.
I didn't realize that Cuban was still paying NVE.
If the Mavs actually listen to their coach, loss of HCA shouldn't make too much difference since both AJ and Pop have said that health is more important than HCA.
The Spurs don't play the head games or let the media affect their focus and determination. We have yet to see if the Mavs allow the head games to affect their play. I think it will.
He's not; maybe he was talking about Finley, but $5-million/year isn't that much.
100% frutrated
For the next 10 years is, billionaire or not.
um they are brokeback frustrated
Agreed.
If only Roy Tarpley....
The frustration has already started.
congratzz to :frustrated fan: hahahahaha!
If the Mavs and Spurs meet in the second round, which seems likely, I think the Mavs have a 50/50 shot at winning the series.
If the Mavs can win the series this year, then all the frustration is forgotten. They will be exponentially more frustrated if they lose to the Spurs again. Right now, they still have a chance to get to the NBA finals, even though it's much harder without HCA against the Spurs.
I'd say it's only a 50/50 shot if Dirk shoots "lights out" and Devin Harris plays.
They didn't win the season series, they had the division tiebreaker2003 - Spurs and Mavs both finish the season with 60-22 records. However by virtue of their winning the regular season series between the two teams, the Spurs take the division and the top seed. Spurs go on to win the conference semifinals matchup between the two teams, 4-2.
Hate to nit-pick, but...
In 2003, Spurs and Mavs split the season series. Spurs owned the tie-breaker based on superior division record. Remember that last game of the season against Dallas, where Duncan and Jackson both sat out and the Mavs trounced the Spurs? Pop yanked them from the starting line-up because it was a meaningless game. Dallas fans should be grateful for that gift, since it gave the Mavs their first 60-win season in franchise history. And they met up in the Western Conference Finals, not the semis.
Anyway, I have confidence in the Spurs and think they'll take the series against the Mavs, but to play Devil's advocate for a minute, Lakers fans were saying the same exact thing about the Spurs in '03. Shaq, Kobe and Phil dominated the Spurs two straight years in the playoffs, humiliating them in the Conference Finals in '01 and shutting down the MVP in '02. The Spurs, desperate for post-season success to validate the asterisk le, had a huge psychological monkey on their backs and were considered the underdogs against the three-time defending champs.
But just like Tolstoy said, the tide always turns. David always ends up slaying Goliath. Eventually, the Mavs will figure the Spurs out, or the Spurs will get old, or Dirk will dig down deep and actually play with fire and determination in the playoffs. It's bound to happen some time. Just not this year....
"Pop yanked them from the starting line-up because it was a meaningless game."
both of them had some ankle soreness, is why they were selected to sit out.
Wrong again.
the Spurs had the better Conference record, but the Mavs had the better divisional record. back then, Conference record for some reason won the division, which made no sense. They finally changed it this year to favor divisional record first, IF both teams are in the same division.
I don't see it happening at all during the Duncan era.
As long as we're nitpicking, Spurs actually won the tiebreaker because of their superior conference record, as that was the second tiebreaker at the time, not division record. In fact, they had a worse division record than the Mavs which led Cuban to complain about the tiebreaking system, and as a result the league changed the tiebreaker rules to make division record the second tiebreaker.
Edit: Damn, someone beat me to it.
I went to that game and was pissed at Pop for allowing me to spend good money and drive almost 400 miles and have to endure such a pathetic display of bball.
I see it happening next year.
Thanks to both of you for the correction.As long as we're nitpicking, Spurs actually won the tiebreaker because of their superior conference record, as that was the second tiebreaker at the time, not division record. In fact, they had a worse division record than the Mavs which led Cuban to complain about the tiebreaking system, and as a result the league changed the tiebreaker rules to make division record the second tiebreaker.
Edit: Damn, someone beat me to it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
