Reply With Quote
^That's true of any player on any team.
I don't think so, as I'm sure most of you do not. But interestingly I caught a segment of the Jim Rome show with Jim Lampley as host. He posed the question that with the rash of nagging foot injuries to Duncan and Ginobili coupled with some aging pieces to their championship puzzle, that perhaps the Spurs are starting to slowly decline.
In all fairness, if you look at how much ball Manu has been playing in his twenties, now fast approaching 30, not to mention Duncan, who will turn 30 in a couple of months, you tend to get more concerned with each ankle sprain and sudden case of plantar fascitis (which I had, recently, as a runner and triathlete. It starts appearing in men's thirties most commonly).
Anyway, Lampley obviously is unschooled in recent Spurs history since he obviously based most of his judgment on the Spurs' recent pathetic loss at Detroit. Obviously the Spurs are missing Ginobili, but the Spurs traditionally start the marathon NBA season slowly, then come early March, they decide to kick it in high gear, have their rotation set and start rocking the larger market teams' worlds.
I, personally, do not think that the Spurs are in decline. In fact, I'm banking on Ginobili and Duncan going into this season's playoffs healthy and I'm looking at the Spurs winning their fourth championship. I'm looking for more of the same in 2006-07.
Basically, I hope Lampley's assumption catches fire and the Spurs are, once again (yawn), discarded among real contenders. Let them fly under the radar, give them reason to fight. We all know that the Spurs are a much better team when they sneak up on teams. Let's hope the national media takes Lampley's cue and tones down its Spurs hype, which hasn't exactly been roaring of late. Meanwhile, the Spurs will clinch another #1 seed, tighten up their defense, and dance all the way to June.
But, Lampley did pose a legitimate question. Could injuries, age, wear-and-tear, what have you, be catching up on the Spurs, namely Ginobili and Duncan?
^That's true of any player on any team.
late 20's to early 30's are usually when players peak. No, the Spurs are not on the decline, especially with the young Euros the Spurs have rights to.
please tell me you're not referring to Beno. please.
The Spurs don't have rights to him, he's under contract.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
yes, I do. Beno sucks BTW
He certainly didn't do a bad job through the regular season and most of the playoffs (not the Finals).
--What I was talking about was that the Spurs have a lot of youth in Europe at this time.
one in the hand is better than two in the bush
The Spurs are absolutely NOT in decline. They are doing what they have always done, prepare for the post season. Many times this year I have seen NVE or Horry start to get on a little roll, only to be taken out. I have often seen a quizzical look on NVE face when this happens. Pop is being careful with the minutes early, as is usual. Once Manu is back and they get this Manu/Finley/Barry thing figured out, play 20 or 30 games with a set rotation, then we'll see about this decline bull . Not to worry.
I can not believe how many people have little to no confidence in the Spurs. I'll wait it out, by the end of the season, the Spurs will be one of the 2 best teams in it.
The Spurs started out last year 20-5. They were 38-10 at the all star break. How is that a slow start to the season? Where is this tradition of slow starts? In the 2002-2003 championship season, the Spurs were 33-16 at the all star break. Not as good as last year, but hardly a "slow start." Again, where is this tradition of slow starts? If it's any other year you are talking about, well then it's a season in which the Spurs did not win a championship. The 1999 season was a shortened 50 game regular season.
Manu definitely makes a difference for this Spurs team. When healthy, he makes them infinitely better.
The most glaring thing about the Spurs with respect to showing decline is their age. Bruce Bowen is 34 years old. And, with the exception of Nazr Mohammed, the main bench players are all well into their 30s. While Manu and Duncan are still in their primes and Parker is still very young, there are not many complimentary players who are young and still have potential and room to improve. Some Spurs faithful may mention the few prospects in Europe like Scola, Javotkas, and Mahinmi. That's fine, but they're not learning the Spurs system. How easily are they going to come over and be able to contribute immediately? Beno did not quite deliver to the point the Spurs felt the need to bring in Van Exel. Fabricio Oberto has not been an immediate contributor and he's an experienced veteran, despite Rasho being average or below-average and Nazr Mohammed not yet in contributing game shape.
Marcus Bryant made mention to this in the pre-season. There are no young prospects on this Spurs team that are developing for the future Spurs. As soon as next year, some of these players like Robert Horry and Brent Barry, may not even be factors on this Spurs team. Spurs don't even have a first round draft pick this year. They gave away Devin Brown for nothing. They didn't look into signing a young wing player like Mo Evans or Matt Barnes. They kept Sean Marks over Sharrod Ford. And, they still have no heir-apparent to Bruce Bowen. And, the Spurs are already over the salary cap for the next three years, and ever so close to the luxury tax threshhold in the following two seasons. And, in four years, the Spurs are ONLY a few million dollars short of the salary cap with ONLY FOUR contracts (TD, Manu, Parker, and Rasho), with NO OTHER CONTRACT, just those four.
Yes, I'm a Pistons fan. And, sure, I cheer for my team more than any other team in the league. But, I have great respect for the NBA champion Spurs. But, if you try your hardest to not be so biased for a moment, you might see that the Spurs are old, the bench especially. The international prospects may turn out fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the Spurs currently lack young prospects to develop for the future.
Spurs may not be in decline this year ... maybe not even next year. But, the Spurs future is not so bright if you really take a good, long look at the roster and the salary cap situation.
The Spurs bench is a little old this season, but overall the team's future is not on the decline. Like JamesR said, they have a good crop of prospects including Mahinmi, Sanikidze, Javtokas .. and I guess Scola if he can ever get out of that contract. I would have liked to have one young, long swingman on the bench this season, but I'm certainly not disappointed or worried about the Spurs' future.
In the sense that the Spurs and Pistons are both JV teams now, I'd say yes they are both in decline.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...
OMG people fly off the bandwagon with a road loss...
We have ONLY 1 HOME Loss!!
This kind of post is so premature the poster needs a kleenex to wipe up...
Spurs lost to the Pistons because of 3 reasons:
1) Pistons wanted it more - who lost game 7, again? Oh yeah, them.
2) Spurs were without the one player who I predicted would be their X-factor during last year's Finals - Manu.
3) Duncan wasn't 100% and too many other players struggled to find the basket (Finley, Horry, Barry)
That's it. It's one loss. Pistons, let's remember, have been the luckiest team in the NBA in not having ONE SINGLE INJURY this season. But it would be unheard of if that continued throughout the season. Let's see what happens if Big Ben or Chauncey goes out with an injury. or McDyess, who's never gone a whole season without some sort of injury.
You're correct in that we haven't had "ONE" single injury; Ben Wallace has had two sore ankles (since recovered), Rip had a sore back and jammed 3 fingers on his shooting hand, Lindsay Hunter has missed the entire season so far due to surgery...what's lucky about that?
As Tim Duncan goes, so go the Spurs.
Spurs is still in the top, without a doubt, but they need from the manu´s energy NOW .
[QUOTE=JamStone]The Spurs started out last year 20-5. They were 38-10 at the all star break. How is that a slow start to the season? Where is this tradition of slow starts?[\QUOTE]
I see your point, and that was neat of you to dig up some historical standings, but generally speaking the Spurs in the Tim Duncan-era have been strong finishers. I guess that "slow" is a relative term. "Slow" as applied to earlier season losses to teams like the Hawks and Bulls over the past couple of seasons compared to their like 9-1 "rodeo road trip" in late February 2003 make my point. Over the past few years the Spurs have been challenged in the standings by the Mavs, too, for example, thanks to several early season losses which seemed to be "gimmes" on paper.
But thanks to consistently strong finishes from March onward, the Spurs have usually roared into the playoffs.
So when I apply the term "slow", it is not my intention that one conjures up images of the Hawks or Raptors, but it seems that up until about early March or so, there are plenty of naysayers. Last season was different, granted, and so far this season, not too many people are off the wagon...yet.
The Pistons look damn good. You gotta consider them to be the almost clear favorite right now.
Guys, I certainly do NOT think the Spurs are on the decline, but I thought since it was suggested on a major media outlet that it'd be worth debating. Looks like most of you agree with me, as I presumed.
How many close games did the Spurs have @ The Palace of Auburn Hills Detroit City in the Finals? By my count, 1, thanks to Horry. The Pistons played with lots of emotion and energy and they held serve.
Give the Spurs time to grow together as a team with the new ingredients. They have added 3 bench players who need to learn what it takes to win a championship and they haven't gotten there yet. It's not like they added another Horry or Kerr with rings on their fingers, already. PATIENCE.
the thing that sucks for you and your team, jamstone, is that the spurs are going to be better than your team every year that you have a legitimate shot at a le.....until your team gets too old itself or is broken up and retooled.
In your eyes the Spurs future may not be so bright but it's sure a of alot brighter than the pistins....
response coming in 3....2.....1
Solid D, I'll give you a response:
How have you been, old friend (whom I've not yet had the pleasure of actually meeting)?
Yeah, Pistons get so lucky, the way great players have these freak shooting slumps just when they play the Pistons. What are the odds?
As for the decline, no, the Spurs are NOT on the decline. Going from '05 champs to '06 runners-up will only mean that the Pistons got that much better, not that the Spurs have slipped in any way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
