Reply With Quote
Memphis will likely have clinched a playoff spot by then, and will be doing everything in its power not to have more people get hurt down the stretch. Some D league lineups will get trotted out in those two games.
Yeah, you really are, and it's getting pretty sad at this point. You went from:
To
To
In consecutive posts. You need to own up to the fact that you're on skates and just want to figure out a way to hold onto your chicken-little opinion. The whole, "Curry had bad games but not REALLY bad games" argument you're making is silly. Even if I concede that Curry going under 1ppp doesn't mean he's having a bad game, the Spurs don't need him to be any worse to beat the Warriors. You're trying to argue that he's never been affected, but going from superstar to slightly below-average is totally being affected. Just. Own. Up.
I guess the Spurs can build on things against other teams, too. They haven't be perfect all season. No reason to mention it if you have such a low bar.My standards for "working" are bit a higher than yours, and I'm sure the Spurs' are as well. They shutdown Curry and Klay. They held the Warriors to 79 points. (And let's not forget to mention that the Warriors were missing 3 rotation players. But to be fair, I don't think Bogut or Ezeli makes them any better against us). And yet, the game was still in doubt up until the final minute. There's still work to be done, things to "build on" against the Warriors.
Lol at you arguing that GS is better but considering the counter-argument hand-waving.There's that hand-waving again.
Of course you don't. You have to protect that "Green isn't talented" stance.I also don't buy Danny>Iggy.
You're counting on upside, while I'm counting on what those players have done so far this season.Stop being a ing hypocrite. Is this season all that matters or not?I counted on Kawhi's "upside" against the Clippers
That's just your reaffirmation that you don't plan on watching the first game and actually analyzing it. You're pretty much basing your argument on box scores and standings. It's ludicrous.Yeah, I shouldn't be concerned about the defending 62-7 champions with a player having a historically great shooting season.
Memphis will likely have clinched a playoff spot by then, and will be doing everything in its power not to have more people get hurt down the stretch. Some D league lineups will get trotted out in those two games.
Dallas and Jazz on the fringes of the playoffs too, I could see them playing them hard. Some teams may try to emulate what the Spurs did last night against Curry with the defense tbh. I could see them dropping a few games.
Cool, he can't guard Diaw in the post either.
More like warriorefs are terrifying. If Kawhi isn't allowed to post up Curry or shadow him on a pnr, what the are you supposed to do. But they played through it and that's what to have to do, make the refs adjusts to your aggressiveness.
you.
There. Too many long posts in here.
got
When we played Kobe in his prime, Pop preferred to let him go off rather than his teammates. This was because Kobe could do a lot off the ball that he never got credit. Curry is one dimensional. Take him away from the three point shot, and he does nothing to make his teammates better. if he comes inside he needs to be fouled hard,to take advantage of his fragile nature. Retired vets have been screaming for teams to do this, and now maybe finally some of these other coaches will take notice.
It will be difficult to win without home court. Listening to Bottom Line on Sirius and basically they said that we played 1996 defense and the ref's allowed it. They said its basically how Jordan and Pippen got Magic and others out of the game - by being really physical. I honestly think that Adam Silver had some sort of hand in just letting Spurs play defense but I don't think he will allow it all the time, especially in Oracle arena.
Rent free.
tl;dr what did everyone think about Diaw starting
No one is ever happy lol.
We're just talking past each other at this point. So I'm going to boil down and clarify my argument:
My basic premise is that Spurs will be big underdogs against Golden State. My reasoning is:
- Their top 2 scores are more explosive and consistent than our top scorers. My evidence to support this fact is the very easily attainable season statistics that you should have little trouble finding (i.e., comparing Klay/Curry and LMA/Kawhi's relative PPP100).
The evidence is in my favor here. Not yours.
- No team has proven they can stop Curry and the Warriors offense consistently enough in order to win a playoff series against them. And lol at citing the 11 times Curry was "stopped" (and you conveniently leave out the context of those performances. "Holding" Curry to 12 points on 12 shots in a 30 point loss isn't necessarily stopping him).
The evidence is, once again, in my favor. Now, if the Spurs are able to limit Curry 2 more times heading into the post-season, I'll change my opinion.
- Last night's win was only a small confidence builder. They're missing a key rotation player in Iggy who's a good matchup against the Spurs. They were on a back-to-back (although I think the back-to-back excuse is pretty weak, since it's been shown teams don't really perform all that worse).The Spurs decimated the Warriors 2 big guns, and yet, it was a one possession game late. This game doesn't quell any of my fears, and I doubt Pop and Co. are resting easy either.
- Their role players/bench are more consistent, younger, and arguably better overall. That being said, it's close to a wash, but close to a wash isn't good enough. I feel our role players will have to beat theirs by a good margin to offset the advantage Curry/Klay will have over LMA/Kawhi. But again, if Duncan, Manu, and Parker play up to par, the whole dynamic changes. I won't claim the evidence is in my favor, but Tim and Manu's ages and mileage worry me, along with Parker's inconsistency. On the flip side, I don't trust Leandro Barbosa, Speights, and Livingston to have a big series against us.
All of that boils down to me believing we about a 4-1 shot in potential matchup. That isn't a "chicken little" opinion, it's a non-homer one.
But we can cut through the bull and put our money where our mouths are. If you're so confident in the Spurs, bet me 100.00 straight up that the Spurs will take the series (caveat: Both teams' top 5 players have to be healthy. I'll even concede Bogut, who's always an injury risk). This is where you say, "I don't bet online."
Nah. you've just been completely driven off your ground and are still trying to claim you had a legitimate argument.
No one's ever argued that. It's not evidence of anything by itself. You need the "the top two scorers scoring more points is critical to a team winning" premise to connect them. That is the actual point of contention, and unless you're willing to go that far, your "evidence" means nothing.- Their top 2 scores are more explosive and consistent than our top scorers. My evidence to support this fact is the very easily attainable season statistics that you should have little trouble finding (i.e., comparing Klay/Curry and LMA/Kawhi's relative PPP100).
No team's proven they can stop the Spurs either, jackass. SA did just blitzkrieg the out of the SB, though. You can say what you want about the role-players, but when you base your ENTIRE ING ARGUMENT around PPG for those guys, them clearly being reduced to negatives is a big freaking deal.- No team has proven they can stop Curry and the Warriors offense consistently enough in order to win a playoff series against them. And lol at citing the 11 times Curry was "stopped" (and you conveniently leave out the context of those performances. "Holding" Curry to 12 points on 12 shots in a 30 point loss isn't necessarily stopping him).
No one cares about your opinion or mine. But no, the Spurs have been historically good against Curry, including the most recent game. You cherry-picking one game isn't a sign or anything other than a man desperately wanting to be right.The evidence is, once again, in my favor. Now, if the Spurs are able to limit Curry 2 more times heading into the post-season, I'll change my opinion.
Um, no. Last night was a better victory than a blowout would have been. Again, teams get blown out all the time. It's not a big deal. In fact, GS has been blown out in five of their seven losses this season. Kerr would have just burned the tape and moved on. This was a game the Warriors wanted and couldn't get. They weren't able to close, even when having the lead in the fourth. Don't let the post-game comments fool you: This was the Warriors' worst loss of the year. Only people like you think GS will just blow out SA in four games. The Spurs getting a tight 50-50 game is much more informative.- Last night's win was only a small confidence builder. They're missing a key rotation player in Iggy who's a good matchup against the Spurs. They were on a back-to-back (although I think the back-to-back excuse is pretty weak, since it's been shown teams don't really perform all that worse).The Spurs decimated the Warriors 2 big guns, and yet, it was a one possession game late. This game doesn't quell any of my fears, and I doubt Pop and Co. are resting easy either.
I don't have a ton of issues with this except for your continued assumptions that the Spurs' defense is essentially irrelevant in this series.- Their role players/bench are more consistent, younger, and arguably better overall. That being said, it's close to a wash, but close to a wash isn't good enough. I feel our role players will have to beat theirs by a good margin to offset the advantage Curry/Klay will have over LMA/Kawhi. But again, if Duncan, Manu, and Parker play up to par, the whole dynamic changes. I won't claim the evidence is in my favor, but Tim and Manu's ages and mileage worry me, along with Parker's inconsistency. On the flip side, I don't trust Leandro Barbosa, Speights, and Livingston to have a big series against us.
This is what EVERY chicken-little person says. That's what timvp said about Memphis 2013. It's what a lot of people said about OKC in 2014. Giving box-score and 2K analysis doesn't somehow make your opinion objective and more sound.That isn't a "chicken little" opinion, it's a non-homer one.
Nope. Not betting that the Spurs beat Houston in a series either.If you're so confident in the Spurs, bet me 100.00 straight up that the Spurs will take the series (caveat: Both teams' top 5 players have to be healthy. I'll even concede Bogut, who's always an injury risk).
I don't be on what other people do. And I think you're desperately trying to save face after you've had so many threads go bad on you recently (including some where I've been on your side)."I don't bet online."
Winning begets winning, the score doesnt necessarily matter. What it was, was a confidence booster, that we can win, no more. What I loved about the game is that there was always a feeling that the score was too close and that all it would take is the Warriors to get a smidgen of confidence and it would rain threes and be all over. But we buckled the down and weathered, what seemed like GS gaining momentum and we won.
Even when I was down on the Spurs a month ago I didn't give the Spurs that low of odds against GS tbh. 70/30 in favor of the Dubs back then, but now I think it's more 40/60. Spurs will be underdogs but it'll be far from the worst odds they've faced.
You're the one with the ty argument. What are you basing your "argument" off of? Where's your evidence? A 2013 series against a Mark Jackson coached team? Lol. Last season? Lol. Last night's game? Lol. The first two are history, and the last one is the smallest sample size you can work off of. My evidence is the very real fact that Klay and Curry are just flat out better scorers overall than LMA and Kawhi. Klay is probably to equal to either of team, and I'd argue Kawhi is a better scorer than Klay, but Curry shifts that balance of power to their side.
Tell me with a straight face that Kawhi and LMA are as offensively good as Curry and Klay. Yeah, yeah, defense matters, but guess what in' what, the Warriors play pretty damn elite defense as well.
Goddamn right it is, especially when two great scorers are complemented by worthy role players, because guess what, dip , when you have two guys as explosive from range as those two, it opens the entire offense because of the attention they draw and the predicaments it forces a defense into. Furthermore, in the modern NBA being deadly from range is a lot more lethal than efficient mid-range shooting and/or post play. This isn't 2005.No one's ever argued that. It's not evidence of anything by itself. You need the "the top two scorers scoring more points is critical to a team winning" premise to connect them. That is the actual point of contention, and unless you're willing to go that far, your "evidence" means nothing.
I don't base my argument just around PPG, and if you were intellectually honest and not a re ed homer with Danny Green's "LDN" jammed up your ass, you'd very easily see that Klay and Curry combined ARE BETTER IN PRETTY MUCH EVERY OFFENSIVE METRIC KNOWN TO MAN than LMA and Kawhi. And considering the role players of both clubs are essentially equal, that will be a big obstacle to overcome. Westbrook and Durant are also superior to LMA and Kawhi offensively, but it doesn't matter since OKC's role players are mediocre.No team's proven they can stop the Spurs either, jackass. SA did just blitzkrieg the out of the SB, though. You can say what you want about the role-players, but when you base your ENTIRE ING ARGUMENT around PPG for those guys, them clearly being reduced to negatives is a big freaking deal.
No. I'm "cherry picking" the entire in' season in which Curry has been playing at a historically great level. To expect any defense to contain him over a series is naive. It could happen, but I'm not betting on it.No one cares about your opinion or mine. But no, the Spurs have been historically good against Curry, including the most recent game. You cherry-picking one game isn't a sign or anything other than a man desperately wanting to be right.
Yeah, "informative" despite the fact they were missing the lynchpin of their most dangerous lineup and the most recent Finals MVP winner. Just handwave Iguodala's absence away as if it were irrelevant.Um, no. Last night was a better victory than a blowout would have been. Again, teams get blown out all the time. It's not a big deal. In fact, GS has been blown out in five of their seven losses this season. Kerr would have just burned the tape and moved on. This was a game the Warriors wanted and couldn't get. They weren't able to close, even when having the lead in the fourth. Don't let the post-game comments fool you: This was the Warriors' worst loss of the year. Only people like you think GS will just blow out SA in four games. The Spurs getting a tight 50-50 game is much more informative.
Of course it's not irrelevant, I just don't believe it's good enough relative the Spurs offense to win a series against a healthy Golden State.I don't have a ton of issues with this except for your continued assumptions that the Spurs' defense is essentially irrelevant in this series.
So only people who are ed homers are not "chicken littles?" Got itThis is what EVERY chicken-little person says. That's what timvp said about Memphis 2013. It's what a lot of people said about OKC in 2014. Giving box-score and 2K analysis doesn't somehow make your opinion objective and more sound.
Nope. Not betting that the Spurs beat Houston in a series either.."
Then let's do a forum bet. If the (healthy) Spurs don't win the series against a relatively healthy Golden State (Bogut can be out), I chose your sig, which you have to keep for a year. And vice versa.
Like what? Almost everyone agrees Parker being a threat takes this team to another level. Whether he's capable or not of being that threat remains to be seen. My position was advocating for him being a key cog in the machine and not relegated to a Derek Fisher role in favor of playing Patty House more minutes. I'll stick by that. Patty House superceding Parker isn't best for the team dynamic. The re Krew advocates for Patty because they have the dumbass perception that Kawhi gets more touches with him on the floor. Never mind the fact Patty has tunnel vision exponentially worse than Parker and hasn't finished a layup in two years.I don't be on what other people do. And I think you're desperately trying to save face after you've had so many threads go bad on you recently (including some where I've been on your side).
I can't read too much into last night's game since Iggy didn't play (I don't care about Bogut and Ezeli). He's as important to them as Manu is to the Spurs.
It might just not be enough though. That's entirely plausible due to a number of factors:
1) Warriors are a top 5 defensive team themselves.
2) The whistle can largely dictate how much D you can really play, especially on the road. HCA might be enough of a difference.
3) They're much more of a "complete" product than the Spurs at this point.
I still think Kerr would rather play any other team than the Spurs in a playoff series, but that doesn't mean there's fear or anything like that. If we were to play a series against them right now, I would think they would still be favored.
So Iggu is irrelevant then??
Even considering his absence, it doesn't take away from the fact the Spurs' overall gameplan was a great success, Green can still guard Curry better than anyone in the league, Diaw really is coasting, and Parker can defend Thompson (small sample size but I never saw that coming. At all.). Spurs also still have plenty of room for improvement with 13 games left to work out some kinks while the Dubs really can't get much better than what we've already seen. Like I said, Dubs are still favored, but it's closer than I'm sure a lot of us we're thinking just 24 hours ago.
Chinook going hard.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
