Reply With Quote
Big three know how "not to choke" I'm sure they can teach it to the rest of the team.
As a Spur fan, I hope this bunch of spur players does not mirror the debacle that was the 07 Dallas Mavericks. The Spurs are finding a way to win, whether it's Hill or Neal or Bonner having a big game to supplement a big game from one of the big three. I, honestly, think this is the 2nd deepest team in Spurs history (2002-2003 roster being the first) and will eventually be number one if they continue to duplicate this early season success.
In saying that this is the deepest team, I am half heartedly implying an idea that this team shouldn't be affected by trying so hard to win during the regular season (see the 07 Mavericks). I know the Spurs aren't the choke dolls the Mavs are, but still, it's an idea to ponder.
What do you all think?
Big three know how "not to choke" I'm sure they can teach it to the rest of the team.
Is your team crapping all over every other team in the league except for one con uously bad matchup whom you are 0-3 against and is hovering menacingly around the 8th seed?
I was going to attempt some witty comeback on your post, but after a few moments thinking about it, I've decided I'll go take a instead. Good night all!
No, as of right now I don't think the Spurs have that problem. What a relief!
we are still missing a legit big, hopefully pop plays splitter more...cause he can be a difference maker in the playoffs whether its an extra 6 fouls or j ust another presence on the court, its better then nothing as we cant have our bigs in foul trouble when we dont have that expense.
The Mavs did not have the range of scorers and/or the depth the Spurs have, a trio of championship proven stars, and/or the capacity as shown in the LAL game to really get it at defensively.
People make too much of the Spurs lack of size - they will still have in the playoffs the best 6'11 player on any team playing more minutes plus Dice getting more minutes - he had a couple of impressive blocks last PM and has turned back the clock + Splitter to turn to.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...urn=nba-184569
(part of great article showing the "semi-mirage" that was the 67 win Mavs
5. Dallas Mavericks, 2006-07
They were the favorite, the 67-win team, but these Mavericks are the go-to gold standard regarding just why point differential is more important than won/loss records when determining the greatness of a team, and why matchups will always rule in the NBA. This doesn't mean these Mavs were chopped liver, far from it. Led by Dirk Nowitzki's(notes) MVP turn, the Mavs were an angry team that was smarting from a 2006 Finals defeat to the Miami Heat.
They weren't exactly seething out of the gate, as Dallas lost its first four contests, but the Mavs teed off on the league from there (a 67-11 record to finish the season, yikes), and seemed to be the overwhelming favorite for everyone that hadn't noticed San Antonio's 8.4-point differential that season (nearly a whole point better than Dallas). Dallas' 1-6 record against Golden State over the previous two seasons was also ignored, as the Warriors went on to top Dallas in a six-game, opening-round loss
The Spurs have right now a point differential of over 8 again so do not worry so much unless that drops signfiicantly going into the playoffs:
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings
Last edited by Rummpd; 12-31-2010 at 09:48 AM.
hey moron, the SPURS have won 4 rings while those mavs team is zip...are you blind to see the difference?
That Mavs upset was really a perfect storm (as most massive upsets tend to be). They ran away with the #1 seed so well that they hadn't played an important game in a month and ran up against a team that had been playing with it's back to the wall for a month. I don't see the Mavs or Lakers letting the Spurs run away with a #1 seed. They'll have teams to help them keep their edge all the way to the postseason.
And this team will be hungry. Ring talk aside, I think it's fair to think that the difference in their most recent playoff exits makes a huge difference. The Spurs don't have any hype from last year that they can buy into. And then yes, there's the rings. I'll let Bruce explain:
What is with the never ending onslaught of idiotic threads lately?
That 2003 team had a lot of names, but it was our weakest champ team bro, just had to step in and say that. Duncan was at his peak then, but Jackson/Ginobili/Parker were all very young and inconsistent, D-Rob was old as and Malik was routinely playing center. Claxton was out 3/4 of the year. We still had Danny Ferry playing.As well as Mengke Bateer.
The 2007 Spurs were the deepest imo. Tim at the end of his prime, Parker entering his, Ginobili in his, Bruce still an elite defender, and great role players.
There's enough sub par teams this year for everyone to feed off. The numbers should reflect that.
The Mav's season was called a great upset for a reason. If it was common for teams with league leading records to falter in the 1st round, we wouldn't be talking about it.
Go research Bayesian inference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
