Hell yeah! Go Sonics! Lets get that Spur hate workin'! What a lot of you Spurs defenders don't understand is that many Rocket fans hate the Spurs on a "Jazzospheric" level. Its pointless to argue. We're just not going to agree! The Spurs could win ten titles in a row and I'd still call them a bunch of "Soft-ass losers." Tony "Jesus" Parker could score 40 points a game and I'd still call him a "Non-Jumping Little b*stard of a Point Guard." Hell, Malone had 40 point games, after which we still called him a "Rogaine Wielding Sorry-Ass Loser." Hate is hate. Jazz hate, Spur hate, it's all the same. Some Spur haters in here are trying to act all 'unbiased' and all. But I can see the truth. C'mon! Quit frontin' Embrace the hate guys! Embrace the hate. Heh heh, that would rule.
All praise to AstroRocket! You said perfectly what so many of us think... if some folks are feeling a little confused, it's because their playing the damned Sonics. May they rot equally!
Not surprising you'd say that. You are delusional if you think this Spurs team is as good as 99. Robinson was much better back then, Elliott was playing terrific on both sides of the court, and Jaren Jackson was shooting lights out (pulling crazy 3's out of his career 35% shooting, CBA butt). BTW, word is that D Rob has a soft tissue tear in his back. Doesn't sound good for his return. He may well be out for the playoffs. Game 2 showed why Duncan is just not Hakeem. He's having trouble dealing with Vin Baker and Jerome James. Duncan's defense scares no one. He blocks a few shots, but can't control games defensively. His one on one D is actually kind of weak. I'd love to see how Duncan fares against Shaq without D Rob to take the pressure off him by at least trying to hold Shaq. Could Desmond Mason's fanatic JAM have closed out the Alamodome? I doubt it, but these are the Spurs we're talking about, career underachievers in the playoffs, save for the 1/2 lockout season. I think the series is going 5.
No kidding. Spurs had a HUGE ludicrous FT line disparity and still couldn't take advantage. Some of the touch calls on Jerome James were just baffling. Bruce Bowen is a lot like Rick Fox, he just holds and reaches and does anything possible to keep his man in front of him.
Huh? Name me one thing David Robinson could do then that he can't do now. In both years, he is/was a role player. He can hit the jumper from 12-17 feet. He can score from the interior, defend the post, and block shots. Elliott playing terrific? He averaged about 11 points per game, I believe, with pretty solid defense. Bruce Bowen is twice the defender, and Steve Smith is a better shooter. Jaren Jackson's role was essentially to come off the bench and spread the defense by hitting some threes. Danny Ferry does the exact same role, only at about five inches taller. Out for the playoffs? Stop wishing. There hasn't been one solid report by any news outlet that even remotely hints at that (out for the postseason) as a possibility. Odds are he'll be back by either game 3 or game 4 in Seattle. There's not a defender in the league that can do much better. When you're guarding quick, athletic big men like James with no help at all, they're going to be able to get that 10 foot fadeaway jumper every time down. The only way to avoid it is to anticipate early, but if you do that the odds are he'll go right around you. With Baker, the problem is with the Spurs guards allowing him to catch it so deep. There's nothing anyone can do if he gets it that close to the basket. Usually, Tim can somewhat front the other power forward, and help deny the position that way. But, without David behind him to protect the basket, Tim has to stay behind his defender and look for help from his guards. These last two games it wasn't there, and it's gotten the Spurs into trouble. They have four days to adjust. Also, I'd love to hear how they've been career underachievers under Tim Duncan. The Spurs may have underachieved some in the 90s, but that was under the leadership of David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, etc. Under Tim Duncan, this team undertook new leadership and a new identity. In 98, his first season, the Spurs advanced to the second round, only to lose to the eventual Western Conference Champion Jazz in a series that few gave them any chance at winning. Remember, the year before that, the Spurs were 20-62. For Duncan to come in and establish himself as both a star and leader and to push the Spurs into the second round in one year was a remarkable overachieving job. In '99, the Spurs won the championship. Enough said. In '00, Duncan was injured and didn't play. Enough said. In '01, they had the league's best record, but simply ran into a team that had formed the absolute perfect chemistry at the right time. There were very few teams in league history that could've beaten the Lakers last year, and for the Spurs not to pull that off doesn't make them "underachievers". BTW, the only "baffling" calls I saw last night were no goaltending on Jerome James clearly taking it out of the basket, and repeatedly shoving Duncan as he made his moves across the lane.
When all he/she has left to say is "Big Fu*king Deal" in response to others not sharing his pipe dream and further exposing his arguments as homerisms I wouldn't call that "civilized". More or less I enjoy the debate with the Cat, yourself and other pro-Spurs guys (as misguided as you are about how good this Spurs team actually is ) until some two-bit crap comment like that comes out. For the record I never said Bowen was a "bad pick up", especially considering his salary. Danny Ferry wasn't a bad re-signing either. Nor was getting Steve Smith bad considering they were going to lose Derrick Anderson for nothing. All I have said is those guys are not as good as the Laker or Kings counterparts and this will be even more transparent in the playoffs with the shortened bench. I can give you more specifics to why if you want (I actually did next post), basically one is crappy on one side of the ball and the other is crappy on the other (I think you can figure which is which). Doesn't mean they are crappy overall players--hell, any NBA player is a damn good basketball player, or that they can't contribute to your team in some limited ways, but keeping them in too long allows deep playoff quality opponents to exploit them. Why this ruffles your feathers I don't know. BTW- Bowen isn't the Savior de Sauvignon, that is Jesus Parker. The former is a very nice rookie, especially considering his draft position, but you don't go into the playoffs having to count on ANY rookie PG this side of Magic Johnson or Isiah Thomas. Matt Maloney was effective for us in a similar role for us too until we got playing the really solid teams who made us adjust and counter-adjust and adjust to the counter-adjust. I am not anti-Spur. I have said plenty of compliments about the tough 99 team and showed how that team is much much stronger than the current one (see next post), that is all. I don’t see why ya’ll don’t see it, though I understand if you are a homer you want to believe it anyway. I have been telling my friend theCat the good advice for over a year if he wants to back someone who might take out the Lakers go with the Kings. They might not be able to do it, but if your sole mission once the Rockets are out of the picture is watching the Lakers go down the toilet the Kings are the best shot you got. It is nothing personal against the Spurs despite MrSpurs attemps to make it so, it is just reality, get used to it.
Sorry Cat the 99 Spurs team was much tougher. In terms of veteran all around players you want for the playoffs, look at what Tim has now versus before: 99 D-Rob > 01 D-Rob ----this isn't even close, 16-10-2.4(BPG) to 12-8-1.8 SE > SS ----similar offensive production but Elliott was an excellent wing defender and Smith at best is a mediocre one. ME > BB or DF (take your pick) ----Ferry can't cover anyone, Bowen can't shoot (39%FG plus he is a worse FT shooter than Shaquille for Pete's sake). ME could play excellent individual or team D PLUS score efficiently (47%), much of the best aspects of both players. AJ > TP ----AJ shot 47% versus 42%, and scores 1 more point while getting 3 more assists. And the above just focuses on individual statistics. It doesn't include intangebles like veteran leadership, poise and savvy throughout the line-up that is hard to measure. That team had the best defense in the league and had a winning clip on pace with this year's Sac Kings, not this year's Spurs.
Okay guys, you're really starting to lose your focus in here. Remember thes words: "The Spurs are bastards, they suck, and we hate them." There's no need for all this backing your opinions up with facts crap thats going on here. Just release the hate through your keyboards, the words come naturally. Here, let me show you guys how its done (Sorry I had to make an example of you Cat. You're definitely one of my favorite posters on Clutchcity, but, 'sigh' you're also a Spurs fan). I don't care if they have Michael freakin' Jordan in his prime. They stiill suck ass. Jaren was the best guard you guys have had in years (and what a sorry ass group that has been), and you let him go. Thats why the Spurs suck. Odds are, he sucks. And so will the Spurs whether or not he plays. Here you go with odds again. Here's some odds for you. Odds are, Tim Duncan sucks on defense. Who cares where he ranks in blocks and all that crap. What matters is, when it counted, Jerome James was lighting his ass up like a Christmas tree. The guards can't help. Why? Because they suck ass. That it, lickitey split. And we allready covered how much DRob sucks, so we know he can't help worth a damn. They've been career underachievers under Tim Duncan. How? Because they suck. hell yeah they did, still do, that's why they suck. They tanked and then they made the playoffs. Doesn't make them suck any less. Baffling? WTF?! Those were great plays man. See, this is why you can't talk to Spurs fans. They're so freakin' biased.
Your right AstroRocket, facts, statistics and analysis really didn't get me anywhere, I need to try new tactics.
Well, a more balanced team can skew statistics. I try not to go by numbers, if possible, because they're impacted by a lot of other factors. There are significantly more offensive weapons on this year's Spurs team; primarily Steve Smith, a perimeter scorer that really was non-existent in the 99 playoffs. I can't find one aspect in Robinson's game that's declined significantly since the 1999 playoffs. Also, I really think you overrate Elliott's productivity. He was an above average defender, but hardly a stopper, and not nearly the offensive threat that Steve Smith is now. IMO, iot's at least a draw, if not a slight edge to Smith. Furthermore, I'll take Bruce Bowen over Mario Elie any day of the week. Everyone here really underestimates Bowen's value to the Spurs. The gap between good and great perimeter defenders is huge, and Bowen is one of the few great perimeter defenders left. Elie, during the 99 season, was merely good. Bowen can force Payton, Bryant, and other premier swingmen out of their games and into taking some difficult shots. He may not be quite the shooter, but he's more than capable of making big shots, especially that corner three (ask the Mavs about that one). Parker is also about twice the penetrator and playmaker of anyone on the Spurs roster in 99, which is much more important than numbers like field goal percentage. Your comparison also disregards depth, which is significantly greater this year. Malik Rose has come from a hustling undersized power forward to being one of the best sixth men in the league. Terry Porter is still there, Danny Ferry has been added, Antonio Daniels is a good playmaker from the wing, etc. Baffling? WTF?! Those were great plays man. See, this is why you can't talk to Spurs fans. They're so freakin' biased. Nice post. Anyway, that last line is exactly how I feel about talking to (some) Rockets fans about Spurs basketball. You could find more objectivity about the Spurs on a Lakers board than you would by a few posters here.
If it's not objective, the point(s) in that post should be easy to refute. If possible, it's common courtesy to at least try and explain your perspective before resorting to personal shots.
Of course you'd find more objectivity about the Spurs on a Lakers board, their the LAKERS. What better place to treat the Spurs, our arch division rivals down I-10, with distain than here... the center of Rocket Fandom of the Known Universe. I fail to see the source of all this confusion. They are not the ROCKETS!
http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=213&xlc=674626&xld=213 I live in San Antonio and have had a chance to listen to the sports radio guys down here. Most think that Robinson is done, not only for this season, but possibly for his career. He apparently has a tissue tear in his back and can't even sit without pain. It sounds pretty bad. You're excuses for Tim Duncan's lack of defensive intensity against 2 total scrubs like Vin Baker and Jerome freaking James are laughable. Then again you are the person that once called Maurice Taylor a good defensive player and you actually consider Cuttino BALLHOG Mobley an NBA star. There's always an excuse for the Spurs. You sound completely like the clueless spurs homers i hear in SA. In 95, they were jobbed by Bob Hill and Dennis Rodman, not outplayed by the Rockets. In 01, they'd have won if not for DA's injuries and Derek Fisher having the series of his life, etc, etc. Bottomline: Spurs are the only NBA champion NOT to repeat in the last 14 years. What an accomplishment!!!!
I just don't appreciate the idea that my points are less valid just because I don't like the Spurs. Do you still think the Sonics are "mediocre" Mr. Objectivity?
-You know I've read some really crazy stuff on the BBS but your assertion that Steve Smith is better than Sean Elliott takes the cake. Steve Smith at THIS STAGE of his career is essentially Matt Bullard, a great spot up 3 point shooter is simply terrible defensively. Can he take the ball to the rack like Elliott did so consistently in 99? Hell no he can't. Smith's knees are shot, the guy can't post up like he used to. Elliott was the X factor for SA in 99, a guy who provided 3 point shooting, slashing ability, AND excellent perimeter defense. Now the Spurs have so many one dimensional players, which makes them so much less potent. Bruce Bowen=very good defender, but a complete liability on offense. Danny Ferry = the complete opposite of Bowen. Ditto for Steve Smith. It's alot easier to take advantage of your opponent when they have so many one dimensional guys on the court, as opposed to 99 when the Spurs had one guy who could excel as an overall player. The only thing that's better about the Spurs this season is Tony Parker. Arguing that Smith is better than Elliott? Lay off the crackpipe man. That's like saying Cuttino is a top 5 SG. Ludicrous. Aside from his 3's, Steve Smith is useless. As for David Robinson, arguing that in 3 years his play has not declined at all is laughable. He was a solid 16-10 guy back in 99 and he was much more of a presence defensively. This may shock you but the Spurs record against elite competition this season was not impressive. 1-3 vs. LA, 1-3 vs. SAC. In 99 they were smoking elite teams. Not even close to the same team
BTW Cat, if you think i'm just using wishful thinking about Robinson being done, check out the fan forum on Spursreport.com. Most fans on there are starting to believe he's pretty much gone for the playoffs. Believe me, I'd rather he played against LA. I don't want to hear SA's excuses when they get their butts kicked up and down the court like they did last season. Then again, simply playing against LA could be in doubt. I wouldn't be shocked if Seattle closed out SA, esp if D Rob is out.
Oh, yeah. I can feel the hate now. There you go guys. Just let it flow. Spurs suck. Btw, as much as it may seem like I'm playing around, don't get it twisted. I really can't stand those bastards.
