This is not even funny Loving seeing the Sonics get it playing that bull**** zone they been playing since 91 Rocket River
Duncan with a triple double early in the 4th of this blowout. 21 points 10 rebounds 11 assists 5 blocks
I can't believe Duncan got 11 assists. I guess Spurs being 9-14 from the perimeter had something to do with it.
I still say Seattle will take this series in five. This was the first playoff game for most of the Sonics, and they were clearly not prepared for the intensity. It reminds me of when the Kings were blown out in game-one against the Jazz in 99. They won a close game-two, and took the Jazz to overtime in game-five. This will be the same situation, except the Spurs will not advance. I see Gary Payton embarassing hot-shot Parker in the next four games.
Except the Kings had a frontcourt of Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, and Scot Pollard. The Sonics have the great Predrag Drobnjak, Jerome James, and Vin Baker. Seattle will be lucky to take a game... the Sonics have about the same chance of winning this series as the Blazers do of sweeping LA.
If the Spurs play the D like they are capable of, and hit open jump shots, I dont see the Sonics winning this series. The Sonics can win the series if they play perfect offensively, and I doubt that is going to happen considering the Spurs should turn up their defense up from their regular season series with the Sonics. Bottom line is I think Spurs will win in 3 or 4.
The Sonics won't stop Duncan, but they WILL stop the rest of the Spurs. Today's game was a fluke. The Sonics beat the Spurs in Seattle without Lewis and Radmanovich, and they lost by a Jumper in San Antonio. Today, they just got some of their players back, and they were even until a mental breakdown in the second half. The Sonics slipped a bit, and folded under the pressure. That's unlikely to happen again. With Seattle getting Lewis back into full health, Mason will go back to the bench, making them a much deeper team. If you think the rest of the Spurs are going to shoot 65 percent again, you're crazy. Duncan will get his, but the supporting cast that includes the big ailing softie will be shut down. Anyway, the Sonics proved that they can win defensive battles and offensive battles. I'd say that they are more talented than the Spurs, just inexperienced.
I'd say that they are more talented than the Spurs, just inexperienced. As I said in the other thread, you could make a case for almost any team that's played the Spurs in the postseason to be more talented, including the championship year of 1999. Do you not notice a pattern year after year that the Spurs are winning games? Maybe team chemistry, intangibles, and other factors mean something? The Sonics beat the Spurs in Seattle without Lewis and Radmanovich, and they lost by a Jumper in San Antonio. Today, they just got some of their players back, and they were even until a mental breakdown in the second half. The Sonics slipped a bit, and folded under the pressure. That's unlikely to happen again. The Spurs are playing better now than they have been all season. Totally different team. Today, the Sonics shot over 50% from the field. The Spurs played poor to mediocre defense for the entire first half. Vin Baker played like he did five years ago. David Robinson went out with an injury. That's unlikely to happen again. And even with that, the Spurs won going away.
The Sonics lost this game in one quarter. They were outshot 75 percent to 25 percent in the third. How they shot in the other quarters did not matter. They shot 57 percent in three of four quarters, but fell apart in the third. That's why they still ended up shooting 50 percent for the game, and losing. Do you really think the Spurs will hit 75 percent of their jump shots again? Any team could beat any other if they hit 75 percent of their shots in a quarter. That game was an abberation. I haven't noticed a pattern of excellence for the Spurs, as you suggest. They won the title in 99, and were absolutely pounded by the Lakers last year. They had homecourt advantage, and were completely wiped off the court. Today's game reminds me of the Rockets' 37 point win over the Mavs. It was a four point game at halftime. The Rockets shot an incredible percentage in the third, and blew the game open. Did the Rockets go on to shoot 75 percent for the rest of the season? Hardly. Any team can have an amazing hot stretch. I'd say that the league-leading team in field goal percentage is more likely to do so. Watch it happen, Cat.
You haven't noticed a pattern of the Spurs winning playoff games and series with Tim Duncan? With Duncan in the playoffs, the Spurs have won 7 series, and only lost 2. That's pretty damn good. And, just like they were pounded last year, the Spurs were the ones pounding the Lakers in '99, with a less talented team than they have now. All last year did was even up the rivalry. The winner this year will have the upper hand. Do you really think the Spurs will hit 75 percent of their jump shots again? Any team could beat any other if they hit 75 percent of their shots in a quarter. That game was an abberation. It's certainly possible. A good number of the Spurs shots that quarter were open layups, dunks, and three pointers based on their fabulous defense at the other end. When the Spurs put the clamps down on defense like they can against the Sonics (who don't have a consistent interior scorer), they're capable of getting great looks and shooting an extremely high percentage for a period of time. I'd say it's more likely for the Spurs to shoot 75% in a quarter than it is for the Sonics to shoot over 60% in the first quarter and a half, or for Vin Baker to replicate his flashback performance.
Today's game reminds me of the Rockets' 37 point win over the Mavs. It was a four point game at halftime. The Rockets shot an incredible percentage in the third, and blew the game open. Did the Rockets go on to shoot 75 percent for the rest of the season? Hardly. Any team can have an amazing hot stretch. I'd say that the league-leading team in field goal percentage is more likely to do so. Watch it happen, Cat. The Rockets were clearly not as good of a team as the Mavs. Any sports analyst, save a Sonics fan or someone biased against the Spurs, will admit that the Spurs are heavily favored and definitely the better team heading into this series. The best team in the league (how they're playing right NOW) is more likely to have an amazing hot stretch than a seven seed. That field goal percentage statistic isn't exactly accurate, since they didn't play a team with the defense of the Spurs every night. Speaking of "Watch it happen", whatever happened to this prediction? Gary Payton will carry the Sonics in game one http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32140 At the least, it'll be interesting to see when everyone hops on the bandwagon. If/when the Spurs take out LA, I'm sure ZRB will be here predicting the Kings to sweep the Spurs, led by that clutch performer Chris Webber.
Well, we'll just have to see what happens in games two and three, won't we? And the Kings would beat the Spurs in five. As for the Spurs beating the Lakers in 99, it was hardly as dominating a sweep as the one the Lakers plasted onto the Spurs last year. The Lakers did not lose by an average of 22.5 points. The Spurs weren't just swept, they were destroyed. One man teams do not win titles, unless that one man is named Hakeem Olajuwon.
You forget ZRB the Spurs did not have Derek Anderson for the first two games, that is a bigger loss than you guys think. When Spurs had guys like Elie, Elliot, and AJ healthy and younger (like in 99) they provided leadership and clutch shooting, even if DROB did not score alot. In the 01 series Elliot barely even played and wasnt even half of his 99 self (and even the 99 Elliot wasnt healthy). I guruntee u the Lakers would NOT have swept a more healthy Spurs team. I consider the 99 Sweep of SA over LA more respectable because both teams were more healthy, and the Lakers had the talent and kept games close, yet guys like Duncan took over when it counted and WON CLOSE games. The Lakers simply took Game 1 from SA, and it completely drained the team and thats why they got swept. If they had guys like Elie, healthy Elliot, or even Anderson then they could of contended easily. And do not forget the Lakers won in 00 without having to face Duncan.....if anything the Lakers were fortunate that year for not having to face the Spurs.
ZRB: want to make a friendly little bet on that? Not money, but something like the winner gets to choose the loser's signature for a month, or something. I've yet to see Chris Webber win a big postseason game or series in his life, and his team's style doesn't exactly fit either. In a slowdown postseason game, which many are, the Kings are in trouble. Yesterday, the Jazz, a team that lost to the Kings in talent at every position, should've beaten them on their home court. If the Spurs played the Kings, Sacramento might be lucky to take one or two games. And please don't tell me you're judging the value of a sweep by the average points the winner wins by. That's honestly sad. A couple of the games in last season's playoffs were actually 10-15 point games for most of the night, but when the Spurs realized the game was over, they just sent in all the backups and lost intensity. How your reserves play in a blowout in the fourth quarter has little bearing on the type of team you are. Another game the Spurs led throughout, only to struggle down the stretch and narrowly lose. One man teams do not win titles, unless that one man is named Hakeem Olajuwon. Who was the Spurs second man in 1999? Statistically, David Robinson was no better than Otis Thorpe in Hakeem's first championship. And I don't think that Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, or Sean Elliott count as that second star. Furthermore, Tim Duncan's play right now is very comparable to Hakeem's play in our two championship runs. You'll never admit it, because of your love for Hakeem and hatred for the Spurs, but Duncan's play down the stretch of this season and to begin the postseason has been absolutely remarkable.
Actually, the player I most compare Duncan to is Hakeem. Statistically, Robinson may have been similar to Otis Thorpe, but his presence meant much more. He is a former star, while Otis was almost always a role player. Now, a bet on what, exactly? A bet that the Sonics will beat the Spurs, or that the Kings will beat the Spurs? I'm happy to do either one with the user's signature for a month at stake. In fact, I'll do it twice. If the Spurs beat the Sonics, then I will still bet that the Kings will beat the Spurs. There's a chance you can pick my sig for two months? How does that sound?
Yeah, sounds fine. Let's just say it doesn't go into effect until when or if the Kings and Spurs play. If, for the sake of argument, the Spurs beat Seattle, the Kings-Spurs series would serve as a "double or nothing" type bet. If one of those two teams is eliminated before the WCF, then it would just be for one month. ZRB: is that you complimenting David Robinson? Claiming he has intangibles beyond the numbers? That's something I never thought I'd see. Anyway, I really can't think of any role he could perform in 1999 that he can't right now. He can still create his own shot, and shoot the open 12-17 foot jumper. He can still block shots inside, and defend in the post as well as almost any center. This, of course, is all assuming his back will be fine after a week or so of rest. I really hope he doesn't try and play tomorrow, because they can beat Seattle without him, and it's imperative that he be healthy against Shaq and the Lakers.
...yet they didn't have those guys. You go with what you have. I'm not so sure that DA would have made much of a difference in that series. He couldn't have hurt though, that's for certain. Now, I will say that the Spurs have an improved perimeter over what they had last season, and especially what made it to the WCF. The Spurs have a point who can actually penetrate now. They have a defender who can make KBryant work to score and limit his ability to create. They have some size on the perimeter at the 2 & 3 as well.
