Reply With Quote
can you spell spoiled.
And we have people on this board ing like Laker fans at LG.net
can you spell spoiled.
I think people are happy with the record, they just want to see the Spurs have HCA throughout the PO's, which considering how good the Spurs play at home this season, would be a good thing. Right now the difference between having the first seed and the second seed would be playing Denver or Grizz, and the Grizz are pretty scary.
Chill.......NO WORRIES.Memphis were swept last year.Remember???
biggest bunch of spoiled fans in the league are the Spurs fans
every game is on TV in SA. I remember having to find a place that would show the games on satelite back during D Robs early years. And then when David scored 78 points on the clippers to win the scoring le over snaq, that game wasn't even televised anywhere.
now if Spurs lose one game.....a the chicken littles are running around bad mouthing everyone and everything.....its just pathetic
Because a Spur team with an incredible record has never had it's weaknesses exposed in the playoffs.
^^^LOL. Bingo. You have very nice takes on things Manny
Yes we are spoiled, but having the HCA throughout the playoffs greatly improves he chances of winning the le especially for the Spurs who haven't won it any other way. This injury probably cost HCA in the WCF and possibly the Finals so you can understand why people are unhappy
And possibly the finals?
Who are you?
GTFO of here you lame ass.
Even if we due end up at #2 in the west. If we make it to the Western conference finas we are also assuming that the Suns will make it there as well. the suns are not playoff tested quite yet. Nash has never had incredible success in the playoffs and the rest of the team is to young to tell.
You'd think, by now, people would realize that maybe this ISN'T the best basketball team ever compiled, and understand the fact that losses build character.
Waitaminute...that's right. This is Spurstalk. Defending a Spurs loss here is like defending rape at an abortion clinic.
Heaven forbid we don't play like the '96 Bulls. People around here like the le should be handed to us on a black and silver platter.
"losses build character."
What demonstrates/proves character is gutting up and executing in crunch time, every execution, to get the W, in statement games, on the road, against top teams.
The severely cripped Spurs played admirable, totally winnable games @PHX and @DET, only to crumble in crunch time. They failed the tests that Pop so relishes (vs blowouts). Even at meaningless 50-16 (Pop said it was "too easy"), the Spurs still have to pass those tests to win the le. It's never too early to start passing them. It's also never too late to start passing them.
These Spurs, like last May's Spurs, have all the skills to win the NBA. Like all championships in all (team) sports, it really does come down to leadership and character.
From 45 minutes onward, the fact is that the Pistons played like champions while the Spurs crumbled.
Admittedly so, and I agree with you in that regard.
The Spurs have had plenty of chances to prove themselves in the clutch and put, as they say, the nitty to the gritty. Unfortunately, they seem to have squandered most of them. This team is strong, smart, fast, athletic, patient, defensive-minded...but it is NOT a clutch team, thus far in this season, and I'm doubting that some odd 18 games remaining are going to change that. These Spurs seem better off just performing well enough to AVOID the clutch; when things stay close is when they seem to break down.
I agree that excelling in these moments does build character, as well as confidence. Situations like this are bound to arise in playoff games, and when they do, it would definitely be a lot better if the Spurs could look back and point out all the times they succeeded under such pressure instead of crumbled.
However, there is still no denying that nothing seems to set a fire under this particular group of players' asses more than a loss.
Had we won the game in Detroit, no one would be pointing out all these faults and mistakes and problems; The urgency wouldn't exist. Despite the fact that these things still occured, that they ARE things that need to be fixed...nobody seems to care about them unless they come in a losing cause, players and coaches included. It's hard to tell your team to fix things when they are just coming off a win and feeling like they're doing everything right in the first place.
And no, this team ISN'T ready for the playoffs and DOES still have a lot of these things to tweak. Winning out the rest of the season isn't going to teach them these valuable lessons, as pretty as it looks for the standings. If it takes a few more losses to slap them in the face and shape them up for the postseason, then that's a sacrifice that I, as a fan, would be willing to endure.
Last edited by Dex; 03-21-2005 at 12:07 PM.
^^^^^ agreed
I'm sure the Spurs will be fine at playoff time. Even if they don't win, it's already been a of a season to enjoy. I was just hoping that they would get the all-time Spurs regular season win record, but with 13 more wins needed and Duncan down it doesn't look like that will happen this year. Oh well, a championship would be a nice consolation prize. [spoiled/]
In the two most recent games, though, they "failed" those tests without their two All-Stars available to make plays. Great teams win in clutch situations because great players make plays -- whether for themselves or for their teammates."losses build character."
What demonstrates/proves character is gutting up and executing in crunch time, every execution, to get the W, in statement games, on the road, against top teams.
The severely cripped Spurs played admirable, totally winnable games @PHX and @DET, only to crumble in crunch time. They failed the tests that Pop so relishes (vs blowouts). Even at meaningless 50-16 (Pop said it was "too easy"), the Spurs still have to pass those tests to win the le. It's never too early to start passing them. It's also never too late to start passing them.
These Spurs, like last May's Spurs, have all the skills to win the NBA. Like all championships in all (team) sports, it really does come down to leadership and character.
From 45 minutes onward, the fact is that the Pistons played like champions while the Spurs crumbled.
To take much about the championship mettle of this team from their performances between mintues 45 and 48 of their games at Phoenix and Detroit is a bit short-sighted, IMO. I'd think it says a lot more about this team that, given the cir stances faced in those games, it had opportunities to close out big games at Phoenix and at Detroit down the stretch the season.
That a depleted roster couldn't overcome good peformances by superior players is hardly a mark against it. I don't think, for example, that had the situation been reversed yesterday -- Pistons playing in San Antonio without Rip and Rasheed down the stretch and unable to overcome the SPurs -- that anyone would be questioning whether the Pistons would be able to get it done in crunch time. Same, I think, would be true if Phoenix had lost by a couple of late field goals playing without, say, Stoudemire and Marion in San Antonio. If those failures wouldn't be pock marks on the credibility of those teams, why should the Spurs recent struggles, given the cir stances attendant to those games, be any indication of what they'd do when up against the wall?
It's too bad that we haven't been able to see what the Spurs could do with Duncan and Ginobili available in those last 3 minutes of those games. I suspect, at worst, that they would be 1-1 in those cir stances -- again, hardly a knock, given the caliber of the compe ion.
The Spurs' .750 win percentage isn't going to do them a lick of good when Duncan re-injures that ankle in the second or third round of the playoffs.
We have gotten a few glimpses.
Against Memphis, bad spacing by Manu caused a costly turnover that ultimately gave the Grizzlies the win.
In the next two consecutive games, Tim Duncan hit big jumpers, one at the buzzer, two secure Spurs victories. Manu also had a big floater in the lane against Toronto.
Then, against Chicago, Tim scored two big buckets in the Final minute to hold off a rally.
The next game, Manu earned a big call on Raja Bell and hit 6 clutch free throws to preserve yet another W.
Like you said, crunch time is a lot different when you have your stars available to make the big plays. Especially when one of those guys is named Tim Duncan.
All things considered, however, I still like our chances when we actually have our big guns on the floor.
True that.
I think you've made my point, which is a point that boutons seems to routinely miss. When the Spurs have been whole, they have generally come up big in games against good compe ion, even on the road. You could (as boutons does) point to a few losses, but you can't ignore the successes in making a point (as boutons also does). Sure, the Memphis game was a loss attributable to a failure to perform in the clutch, but the Spurs have been successful more often than they've failed in crunch time.
To point to the Phoenix and Detroit losses (games in which Duncan and Ginobili played majorly reduced roles) as proof that this team somehow can't get it done at crunch time, I think you're stretching to find an argument.
Me too.
I go back to the article I posted ridiculed by everybody about the Yankees vs Red Sox team styles. The dumb s couldn't see the article talked about two different styles of successful team dynamics, using baseball championship teams only as an elaborate example. I made no attempt to compare baseball to basketball, but dumb s will be dumb s.
While Manu and Tim would have certainly impacted those 2 statement games hugely, I respect/expect the rest of the team to be able to step it up, "do all the little (non-All-Star) team things", under the duress of the stars' absences.
These star-absent games were excellent tests for the other players, whom we will need to step up in the playoffs, since Tony/Tim/Manu can't do it all. For 44+ minutes in both games, they did.
But in crunch time, they blew it.
After Big Shot Bob hit a BIG SHOT to bring the Spurs to -2:
Tony didn't take a shot,
Rasho had a TO and dumb shooting foul,
Beno choked and missed the jumpers that are his trademark,
Devin missed jumpers,
no Spur could draw a clock-stopping foul.
Only Devin had the balls to take it to the hoop (as Manu would have),
and Nazr had a good play to score a layup (I think he's for real).
divided by possession:
(3:25) [SAN 97-99] Horry Jump Shot: Made (8 PTS) Assist: D. Brown (3 AST)
Spurs bring it to a one-possession game with 3:30 remaining. A "moral" victory, so far.
(3:00) [DET] Prince Jump Shot: Missed
(2:59) [DET] Team Rebound
(2:59) [DET] Team Turnover: 24 Second Violation ( TO)
... Spurs defense gets a huge stop!!
(2:59) [DET] Team Timeout: Regular
(2:59) [SAN] Glover Subs ution replaced by Parker
(2:41) [SAN] Nesterovic Turnover: Bad Pass (2 TO) Steal: Prince (2 ST)
.... instead of a Spurs score to tie @99, this T0 + shooting foul probably killed the Spurs' comeback ....
(2:21) [DET 101-97] Billups Driving Layup: Made (20 PTS)
(2:21) [SAN] Nesterovic Foul: Shooting (2 PF)
(2:21) [DET 102-97] Billups Free Throw 1 of 1 (21 PTS)
... Spurs go down by 5. !!
(2:08) [SAN] Udrih Jump Shot: Missed
(2:05) [DET] Prince Rebound (Off:4 Def:3)
(1:42) [DET] Prince Jump Shot: Missed
(1:40) [SAN] Parker Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)
(1:34) [DET] R. Wallace Foul: Personal (3 PF)
(1:34) [SAN] Nesterovic Subs ution replaced by Mohammed
(1:21) [SAN] D. Brown Jump Shot: Missed
(1:19) [DET] Billups Rebound (Off:0 Def:4)
(0:58) [DET 104-97] Billups Layup Shot: Made (23 PTS) Assist: R. Wallace (4 AST
(0:58) [SAN] Team Timeout: Regular
(0:53) [SAN] Udrih Jump Shot: Missed
(0:52) [DET] B. Wallace Rebound (Off:1 Def:7)
(0:52) [SAN] D. Brown Foul: Personal (4 PF)
(0:52) [DET 105-97] B. Wallace Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS)
(0:52) [DET] B. Wallace Free Throw 2 of 2 missed
(0:51) [SAN] Horry Rebound (Off:0 Def:2)
(0:51) [SAN] Team Timeout: Regular
(0:48) [SAN] D. Brown Jump Shot: Missed
(0:46) [DET] Prince Rebound (Off:4 Def:4)
(0:46) [SAN] Horry Foul: Personal (2 PF)
(0:46) [DET 106-97] Prince Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS)
(0:46) [DET 107-97] Prince Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS)
(0:40) [SAN 99-107] D. Brown Driving Layup: Made (18 PTS)
(0:39) [SAN] Udrih Foul: Personal (3 PF)
(0:39) [DET 108-99] Billups Free Throw 1 of 2 (24 PTS)
(0:39) [DET 109-99] Billups Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS)
(0:32) [SAN] Udrih Jump Shot: Missed
(0:29) [SAN] Parker Rebound (Off:1 Def:1)
(0:25) [SAN 101-109] Mohammed Layup Shot: Made (13 PTS) Assist: Parker (5 AST)
(0:22) [SAN] D. Brown Foul: Personal (5 PF)
(0:22) [DET] Arroyo Free Throw 1 of 2 missed
(0:22) [DET] Team Rebound
(0:22) [DET 110-101] Arroyo Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS)
(0:13) [SAN] D. Brown Jump Shot: Missed
(0:11) [DET] B. Wallace Rebound (Off:1 Def:8)
(0:00) End Period
I regret is was another excellent test that was failed. There will be other tests, but we're running out of season.
You seem to expect that the Spurs, without Duncan and without Ginobili, should routinely do what very few teams in the NBA can do when whole: walk into road games against elite teams and beat them in crunch time. Only the very best teams win in those situations, and rarely do they accomplish that feat when not whole, particularly late in the season.
You're upset about a group of role players failing to knock out the defending champions on their home floor in crunch time?!?!?! I'm amazed (and quite pleased) that they even managed to get the game to crunch time. Do I wish they had found a way to get over? Sure. Would I have expected them to? Absolutely not.
I'll concede this much: if you can point me to a championship contender that played a road game in March against another contender and won in crunch time without its two best players, I'll listen.
Until then, I think you're back to your Chicken Little ways -- only this time, the sky is actually falling, because the Spurs won't win anything without Tim Duncan. A fact is a fact: the Spurs, sans Duncan and Ginobili, WILL NOT WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. That isn't rocket science, and as far as I'm concerned (and seemingly, as far as Tony Parker is concerned) that is not subject to debate.
By the way: IIRC, that baseball article you posted simply postulated that teams with good chemistry are more likely to get it done in crunch time. Fair enough. But I doubt any author would argue that Boston would have won if you took, say Curt Schilling and David Ortiz away from the Red Sox last fall. Chemistry helps talent congeal -- but if your team is lacking in talent (as the Spurs are without Duncan and Ginobili), all the chemistry in the world won't get you over against superior teams on a consistent basis. That is particularly true in the NBA, where individual talent is at a much greater premium than it is in any other sport.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
