Reply With Quote
Diop, Croshere, George, Buckner...
None of them are all that good and when you think about it, them plus Stack are all that will be playing come playoff time.
Why is Dallas supposed to be sooooo much better than us? I've been thinking about it for a long time now and I've come to the conclusion that they're a lot like the Pistons from last year. Now, people want to argue that Detroit had no bench last year minus Hunter and McDyess, which is true, but really, who is on Dallas' bench that is so damn good? Stackhouse? Is that it? Really?
They're not as scary as the media has made them seem.
Sorry to Mav fans if you guys think I'm being a homer but I'm being dead serious when I say the Mavs are not deeper than the Spurs. I respect the Mavericks as a good team, but I really think people are overlooking the Spurs.
Last edited by EssaySpur1001; 03-15-2007 at 03:45 AM.
Diop, Croshere, George, Buckner...
None of them are all that good and when you think about it, them plus Stack are all that will be playing come playoff time.
Because they are six games ahead of us.
Good point.
Funny how many people discount how good the team was last year. The Mavs won 60 games despite lots of injuries. , they finished the season 8-8. By the playoffs they were much better than their record indicated.
I'm not sure what that means, but the players that matter and will be playing a lot are Dirk, JHo, Terry, DHarris and Stack. And the players that matter for the Spurs are Tim, Manu, Tony and Bruce (and hopefully someone else steps up).
I don't know why the pre-occupation with trying to find ways to make the Mavs seem bad. They are very, very good. Do they have the best bench of all-time? No. But the Spurs bench (if you count Manu as a starter) isn't anything to write home about.
The teams will match up pretty well in the playoffs, but overall this season the Mavericks have been a better team this year. I don't know why Spurs fans are dying to downgrade that somehow.
And beat the Spurs last year despite not having HCA, which they have pretty much wrapped up.
I know, but I'm just curious as to why many people think we are not on the same level as the Mavericks.
It's gonna be a good playoffs.
Sorry if I came off as "downgrading" them but I didn't mean to. They have a decent bench, yes, but I'm saying it's not so much better than our bench if it even is. They are a very good team, but what I'm saying is the teams are virtually even, and some Maverick fans have said they can take us in 5 or 6 games when the gap between the two teams in virtually undefinable.
I'm not sure what that means, but the players that matter and will be playing a lot are Dirk, JHo, Terry, DHarris and Stack. And the players that matter for the Spurs are Tim, Manu, Tony and Bruce (and hopefully someone else steps up).
I don't know why the pre-occupation with trying to find ways to make the Mavs seem bad. They are very, very good. Do they have the best bench of all-time? No. But the Spurs bench (if you count Manu as a starter) isn't anything to write home about.
The teams will match up pretty well in the playoffs, but overall this season the Mavericks have been a better team this year. I don't know why Spurs fans are dying to downgrade that somehow.
It's pretty definable.
The Mavs are 6 1/2 games better than the Spurs
You know what I mean.It's pretty definable.
The Mavs are 6 1/2 games better than the Spurs
I agree. I'm not sure why some of the Spurs fans are acting like there's something wrong with pointing out that the Spurs have actually improved more than the Mavs have, or that the big three is healthy this year. I guess they are afraid of jinxing it.
I know, but I'm just curious as to why many people think we are not on the same level as the Mavericks.
It's gonna be a good playoffs.
Considering that there was no Oberto, Rasho, Nazr, Vaughn, Bonner or Elson playing during the WC semis, that seems like a decent upgrade if they are playing well, which they have been. The Spurs played like turds there for a while and lost any chance at the number one seed. Oh well. The Spurs have been bounced with it and have won it all without it.
Just like the Spurs were 15 games better than the Rockets.It's pretty definable.
The Mavs are 6 1/2 games better than the Spurs
The media and the doom-and-gloom posters act like the Mavs are 20 games ahead of everyone else, which is not the case. If the Mavs are destined for victory and so great, then why was the 2006 series between the Spurs and the Mavs 7 games? Shouldn't the Mavs/Gods be sweeping every series?
I agree with EssaySpur1001. The Mavs are NOT waaaaaaaaaay ahead like people make it seem. You can't even argue they are better. The Spurs have the best record in the league since the AS break and all that matters is the here and now, not how many games we won in Decemeber and January.
Here and now.
There is a reason teams start their records fresh each year -- because they are new teams. And there should be a new record every month, because teams change. Can you honestly say that the Spurs are playing like they did in January? Can you honestly say that the Mavs are playing like they did in November?
No. All that matters are the teams NOW, the teams down the stretch and into the playoffs. The Spurs dive before the All Star break has skewed our record much more into the losses than we really are.
And if you ask me, NOW, the Spurs, Suns, Jazz, and Mavs are on an equal plane. It will probably be this way come the playoffs too.
Maybe its because its March 15 and the Mavs are now having their SECOND loosing streak of the season (The first in FOUR MONTHS). The Spurs have had five loosing streaks.
The Mavs are good. Don't kidd yourself....
meh, dallas sucks.
Barring any major injuries or big time shooting slumps on either side, this is going to be a very tight and compelling series. The two teams match up very well with each other, and it will come down to consistent execution on the court... i.e. the team with the fewest mistakes will win.
Also, don't discount Phoenix. The Suns are a tough team and will be there in the playoffs.
Before their loss to Golden State, Dallas was on pace for 70-12, which would have been only the second-ever occurrence of a team winning 70 games - Michael Jordan's 72-10 Bulls being the first. I understand why people got excited over that.
They should just tie the knots harder next time
I hate when people say "Before their loss to such and such" , or "if they hadnt opened 0-4", "if they hadn't lose to Golden State" ,those are the key words, BEFORE and IF. You can't just throw stuff out the window. The Mavs won't win 70 games anymore, too bad. 69 games won isn't bad though.
Let me try one: If the Spurs hadn't lost three in a row to open 2007, we'd be 49-15. How do you like that?
Nice take. You really bring alot to the board, I don't know what we would do without you.
Aren't you the one throwing stuff out the window here? The Mavs regular season success was the buzz about the Mavericks season to that point. The question was asked "Why do people think the Mavs are so great?" and I answered based on the reaction Dallas' success was generating.
Don't confuse what I said with some sort of argument which goes "The Mavs would have finished 74-8 if not for [fill in the blank]." That is absolutely NOT what I was saying.
BTW, 69 wins "isn't bad"? That would tie the 1972 Lakers and the 1997 Bulls for the second best record of all time. Yeah, 69-13 is pretty decent.
When people see that they have to run to compete with Dallas, Dallas is gonna be in deep trouble these last 17 or so games.
its really just cause their younger, and we have a veteran team, you know how the media like the fast explosive teams
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
