Reply With Quote
The Spurs' 2nd half-season losses to Pacers, Celts, and Bucks, killing their chances for 2nd seed, were exclusively the Spurs'/Tim's own fault, not Crawford or anybody else's.
"San Antonio had won six straight and was on a 12-1 roll. The only loss came against Indiana — another game that Crawford worked and another game that he rang up a T on Duncan."
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=302164
The Spurs' 2nd half-season losses to Pacers, Celts, and Bucks, killing their chances for 2nd seed, were exclusively the Spurs'/Tim's own fault, not Crawford or anybody else's.
agreed! losses yes! T's no
I'm just pointing out facts.
hmmmmmmmm
I was at the game in Indiana and even had the opportunity to sit courtside for the 3rd quarter and the early 4th. Nothing that Joey Crawford did that night cost the Spurs that game, and I think its shameful to imply that he might have. Joey t'd Timmy up that night in the 3rd quarter. I was about 30-40 feet from the play when it happened and Timmy's complaining about a call warranted the technical that he got. The rest, however, was about the Spurs playing bad basketball, which, again, had nothing to do with Joey Crawford.
Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions...The conclusion I've drawn is that Crawford has a quick whistle with Duncan. I think he has a personal beef with him. And I think he should be fired (or at least suspended) for what he did yesterday. That's my opinion. Call it "shameful" if you want, but there are a LOT of people who agree with me...fans and analysts alike.
Drawing a conclusion that a referee is responsible for losses takes the focus away from the fact that the Spurs played poorly when it mattered in Indianapolis, and that had absolutely nothing to do with Joey Crawford.
Saying Joey Crawford has a "quick whistle" with Duncan -- notwithstanding the technicals -- is ridiculous. Yesterday, Tim played 27 minutes with Crawford on the floor. He was called for 1 foul, and offensive foul that Leroy Richardson whistled him for. Yeah, Joey definitely overreacted in doling out the T's, but nothing about the play of the game suggests in any way that Joey was treating Tim differently while Tim was on the floor, which is (I guess) the suggestion you're trying to make here.
Joey Crawford's lack of discretion yesterday was abominable, I think. But to blame the Spurs' loss yesterday, or the loss in Indianapolis for that matter, on Joey Crawford's treatment of Tim Duncan is sour grapes. Without Tim, the Spurs had a chance to win that game, but played too poorly to accomplish that goal. That's the game story. I'm not sure that anyone can truly argue that the sideshow involving the Duncan-Crawford incident was decisive in the game.
Crawford was directly responsible for the Spurs loss yesterday. fact.
It was a factor. But even with that factor in the equation, the Spurs had their opportunities, and Joey Crawford didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Spurs didn't capitalize on those opportunities.
And missed open 3's... no wait I'd rather blame crawford for those..
ok then. eject Nash in 3rd quarter in a close game vs. mavs and I'd bet my house Suns lose.
same thing w/Duncan
You're contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. Sure, Duncan's ejection was a factor in the game. But it isn't THE reason the Spurs lost. That's what you seem to be implying and I, frankly, think arguments implying that officials cost a team a game are weak.
The Spurs had an opportunity to win the game yesterday without Tim Duncan, didn't they? After all, the game was tied with under 1 minute to play and the Spurs had several possesions on which they could have either taken the lead or at least tied the game. They came up short on each one of those possessions. That's why they lost.
I would have the opportunity to beat Duncan on 1 on 1. what's your point.
we lost the game because we didn't have Duncan. is that so hard to understand?
Outside the Lines is doing a piece on Duncan, the show just started
So you're 100% certain that if Duncan had played the 4th quarter, the Spurs would have won the game? Absolutely, no doubt about it, positive?
I'm not sure how anyone can actually know that.
Do you even know what a "factor" is?
You can't say "Duncan's ejection was a factor in the game" and then claim that it did not contribute to the loss.
how about this:
Duncan's loss was the BIGGEST factor that contributed to losing the game. Bigger by far than any other factor.
if you can't agree with that, I give up.
fac·tor /ˈfæktər/
–noun
1. one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation:
Sure I do. Just as a player's injury might be a "factor" in a game. But the player's injury isn't what decides whether the team wins or loses. I don't see how you can continue to ignore the fact that the Spurs had the lead for virtually all of the 4th quarter and had opportunities to: (1) extend the lead at a number of points; and (2) tie and retake the lead late.
Those things were true without Duncan. And as I noted above, unless you can show me with 100% certainty that the ultimate result would have been different had Duncan played, I don't buy that the factor of Tim's ejection was the cause of the Spurs loss yesterday.
Hmmm. Silly me -- I thought it was all of the missed shots in the 4th quarter.how about this:
Duncan's loss was the BIGGEST factor that contributed to losing the game. Bigger by far than any other factor.
if you can't agree with that, I give up.
Maybe that's just me. Tim Duncan must have the mystical power to make wayward shots from his teammates find the bottom of the net when he's on the floor.
It was the biggest factor by far. so when someone asks you why Spurs lost?
short answer: we didn't have Duncan
long answer: we didn't have Duncan and we also missed our shots in the 4th.
Only answer: Spurs didn't score as many points as the Mavericks did.
I blame Brent Barry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
