Reply With Quote
no, there's no way you get that easy of a shot coming out of a timeout, it just didn't fall
I'm curious what you guys think. The Spurs had a 20 left and didn't use it. I was surprised by that. Finley had a good shot to win the game, but I would think that you would want Parker or Duncan to have the ball.
no, there's no way you get that easy of a shot coming out of a timeout, it just didn't fall
Wide open five footer for Finley? That's a shot he almost always hits.
I agree, Mason had 2 very open shots, either for himself or Finley.
You couldn't have drawn up something better than a semi-open layup or a wide open 10 footer.
yeah.
i agree with timvp and allanon.
the spurs had the perfect play, it just didn't bounce our way.
Plus, I think Pop has always leaned towards the team just going for the attack in situations like that.
I know against the Cavs last year he had Manu go for the last shot (which didn't fall).
It seems like Pop has just gone away from calling timeouts with little time left, unless it's the playoffs. He probably likes the element of surprise it gives to the opposing team who are fully expecting a timeout to be called.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work.
yes they should have called timeout! Tim was on the ground under Portland's basket and obvioulsy wasn't gonna be involved in whatever they were trying to do. When your best player is on the ground with 6 seconds left in the game and you have the the ball when your down 1 YOU CALL TIMEOUT!
yea it was a good none timeout imo. im sure finley wishes he could get that shot back.
Maybe. But I think the biggest mistake was letting Finley take the last shot. He proves again that, at times, he can be good as a frontrunner. But not when you need a clutch bucket. In that situation, we missed Manu. , I'd rather have had Mason take it all the way. Finley's got no cahones - whatsoever.
well f%^& you too.
I agree with this.
No they shouldn't. You push the out of the ball so the defense doesn't set up.
That's exactly what Mason did. The shot just didn't drop.
finley is a clutch shooter just missed tonight maybe it was too close and he needed it to be a 3 instead
I don't get it, do people think shots only go in if you call a time out?
I just replayed teh last 6 seconds.
Udoka rebounded at 6 seconds
Mason got past the half court at 4 seconds.
Mason got past Roy at the top of the key with 2.5 seconds left
Mason getting past Roy made it a 2 on 1 for the Spurs.
Finley calling for the ball on the right with Pryzbilla hedged towards Finley.
Finley with a short Jumper
Mason with a left hand layup (I dunno if Mason's any good at left handed layups)
Both shots would have been quite uncontested.
I thought they should have called a timeout and set up a play. With the shooters hitting shots in the flow of the game, Duncan and Parker as dominant as they were and Pryzbilla with five fouls, I'd have called it, no question. At the end of a game down one on the road, I want the ball in Parker's hands, not in Roger Mason's.
That said, the Spurs caught the Blazers off guard by not calling the timeout and got themselves a pretty good shot. You can't argue that they'd have had too much better of an opportunity.
No guarantee a timeout produces anything better than a Mike Finley wide-open, short-range jumper. In hind-sight, I almost wish that Mace had taken it all the way to the hole on Joel Przybilla and take his chances on a make or drawing hard contact. Of course, had J. Bayless been in the game, he would have been the x-factor.
And I guess Mason can't dunk. I'll go back and check, but wasn't Pryzbilla inside the no charge circle?
Nah, he wasn't. He was outside the circle but in no-man's land between Finley and Mason. He would have been in the circle to the right had Mason decided to go for the layup.
It was rather poor defense by Pryz, he committed to neither guy and left both open. He did start moving back to Mason at the same time Mase passed to Finley.
My worry is that the refs wouldn't have called any type of foul in that situation. Pryzbilla is a great shot blocker, but even if Mason was to draw contact, I'd have a hard time believing the refs would've made the call for the visiting team in that situation.
Sucks, but it's true.
We just lost to the Blazers?????????? Is this a bad dream?
It's an either or call. You cannot argue with the shot that they ended up getting, so it wasn't a bad decision not to call a timeout. But, with 5-6 seconds left, and Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, calling a timeout was also a viable option. No right or wrong answer really.
And, for this situation, Pop already knows what to expect from Tim and Tony. It was actually pretty telling to see how Roger Mason reacted once he got the loose ball. He made a great play under pressure for a really good look at a game-winning shot. I'm sure Pop hates that they lost, but likes what he saw how Mason handled the situation, not having to call a timeout.
not to mention that would have been Prz's sixth foul.
I was yelling for them to call a timeout when they secured the rebound, (after getting over the shock of them actually securing the rebound) but you can't argue with the shot they got. Finley makes that 8 out of 10 times.
Mason displaying that kind of poise under pressure was definitely encouraging, and something I'm sure that wasn't lost on Pop.
There's definitely alot of positives to take from this game.
Agree...i think it was a choice between a wide open 10-footer from Finley (with him calling for the ball), or go up hard and hope for the best (either a dunk or a call on the road)...i don't think i can argue with either choice...the shot just didn't fall...it happens...but, darn it, that was a fun game to watch...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
