Gotta love those record-setting *s. Won the championship in 99 only to go out in the first round the following year. I love saying that.
CatoB, you are right on. Saying Smith and Bowen overall contribute more on the floor than Elliott and Elie shows people forget how important those 2 guys were to the Spurs run. I do disagree with CatoB on this though, you would much rather have your starting guard in the playoffs be AJ (99 version) than a rookie. Sure AJ couldn't hit a 3, but he is vastly more savvy and better in about all other phases a PG has to do. TP may be better in 2 years, but he certainly isn't better or steadier in leading the team right now than AJ was in 99. Also, Cat, man, it is unfathonable to me to not see the difference between D-Rob in 99 to him today--this is even if D-Rob is able to come back at all. The talent of players, the collection of all-around players versus specialists, analysis of individual offensive stats, team defensive stats, team winning %, EVERYTHING shows the 99 team was a notch better than the current Spurs. That 99 team would have had a good chance at winning the title this year.
Yup. The Spurs played terrible basketball the other night, and were without their second best player. When that happens, they can be beaten by mediocre teams. Bottomline: Spurs are the only NBA champion NOT to repeat in the last 14 years. What an accomplishment!!!! Bottom line: If the Rockets win a championship next season, is its value somehow deflated if they don't win two in a row? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. It was also pretty much impossible for the Spurs to win the year after that with Tim Duncan hurt... 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 point out the flaws, instead of resorting to personal shots. If they're that laughable, it should be easy. I never said he lacked intensity in the first place, but rather was put in an impossible position by his teammates. Explain what could've been done differently. 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 I don't care what the Spurs record for this entire season is... I care about how they played in those last 25 games going into the playoffs. That's what sets the tone, and often determines momentum and postseason play. 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. I post on that site occasionally, and read it frequently, and haven't seen anyone except for regular pessimists and flamers expecting him to be out for the playoffs. Won the championship in 99 only to go out in the first round the following year. If Hakeem had been injured and unable to play in 1995, I'm betting that we would've been out in the first round too. 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. Steve Smith at this stage of his career is still a very good player. He can score from the outside, but also off of screens, headfakes, and other shots in the midrange area. He's also still a good post player, and not nearly the defensive liability that some make him out to be. Elliott was a good slasher, but did nothing that Antonio Daniels, Tony Parker, and other perimeter players on this Spurs team can't do. Furthermore, anyone who thinks Elliott's perimeter defense was excellent really needs to watch some film from 1999. It may have been above average, but a far cry from anyone like Bruce Bowen or other "excellent" defenders in the game today. Also, Cat, man, it is unfathonable to me to not see the difference between D-Rob in 99 to him today--this is even if D-Rob is able to come back at all. Again, how often do you watch the Spurs? If you judge by statistics, which most in this thread are doing, that observation appears accurate. But, when I watch the games, I truly believe Robinson could give 16 points and 10 rebounds per game if he had the same role in the offense he had three years ago. There's always an excuse for the Spurs. Just like there's always been an excuse for the Rockets since 1996, but I don't see you laying down "the truth" in the Rockets forum. 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 Typically, rivalries are formed in the playoffs, in big games where both teams dislike each other and have had success winning. In 1999, the Spurs swept LA, and won a title. In 2001, the Lakers swept SA, and won a title. It's obvious that both teams have things to prove, and it's obvious by reading quotes from the players that the teams dislike each other. The Rockets played some big games against the Spurs in the 90s, but that was a different era of both Rockets and Spurs basketball. Both teams aren't in the playoffs now, and haven't had a significant game either in the playoffs or end of the regular season in at least three years. To me, a good comparison is the Lakers and Celtics... certainly, there's a historical rivalry. But, do you really think that in the present day NBA the members of those respective teams have a hatred for the other? If they do, I haven't seen it. Rivalries are formed in major postseason games where both teams have success, and right now, that should make the Lakers and Spurs two of the biggest rivals in the league.
I could buy this about points, but he has declined in rebounds and blocks, steals, etc. You can say this is in part due to reduced minutes, but then you have to ask why would the minutes be reduced if he could perform at the same level for the same amount of time. If you have less of a focal point in the offense these others things should go up all things being equal . But all things aren't equal, I think more of what you are seeing is D-Rob isn't the player he was 2 years ago, when he wasn't the player he was 2 years before that. The same things happened to Hakeem, it is called aging and collective wear. Now even after 95 Hakeem could occasionally show his old flash--as I am sure D-Rob showed some here and there this year, but he never was the same sustained player after that. It happens to the best of them. Cat I agree with you much of the other knocks on the Spurs (e.g., they didn't repeat) is garbage, I simply think you are understimating the toughness and well-roundedness in the 99 team. The difference from the 99 team from this year's Spurs team and the very good 95 Spurs team (though that team was also better than the current one IMO) was that guys like Elie and Elliott couldn't be exploited at either end. The Person, Rodman, Bowen, Ferry-type, one-way specialists just don't compare in terms of value for playoff basketball against elite opponents.
Well this "mediocre" team has beaten your beloved Spurs 3 times now this year. You make it sound like the Spurs didn't have anything going for them in the last game. Did you not notice the free throw advantage they held? The refs were practically trying to give your Spurs as many chances as possible to win that game. How exactly is Seattle mediocre? They're one of the best jumpshooting teams in the league, how's that mediocre? They showed quite a bit of intensity on the defensive end in the last game, how's that mediocre? They're probably more athletic than your beloved Spurs, how's that mediocre? I'll say it again, the Sonics have beaten your beloved NBA title contending Spurs 3 times, how are they mediocre?
Not sure how many times I have to say this, but the Spurs themselves were mediocre for a large part of the season. I'm only concerned about their performance in this recent stretch before the playoffs and in the playoffs. I hardly think periods before then have a lot of bearing on the team's current performance. First off, I sure didn't notice the refs trying to give the Spurs the game... if anything, it was terribly biased against the Spurs... I can't begin to think of how many goaltends Seattle wasn't called for, and how many times Duncan was shoved across the lane. Typically, jump shooting teams don't go to the line as frequently as most. As for intensity, the Rockets can come out with intensity on any given night, and the Clippers are probably more athletic than your beloved Lakers. Doesn't necessarily mean they're better, or not medicore. Most teams that wins 45 games or under and slump going into the playoffs are going to be considered mediocre. I can guarantee I'm not nearly the only one.
Would you guys just stop arguiing with The Cat. This is the guy who said the Spurs rejected Webber and not the other way around. The Cat is a Spurs fan, A HUGE one, and I realized long ago that its no use in arguing with him about the Spurs, because to him they are the greatest team of all time and the Lakers are only champions because of some conspiracy.
and I realized long ago that its no use in arguing with him about the Spurs, because to him they are the greatest team of all time Would love to hear a quote from me saying this, please... This is the guy who said the Spurs rejected Webber and not the other way around. I know what I read... seems like it was in ESPN Insider, but I can't remember. I read that essentially Webber was waiting by the phone for the Spurs to call him, and nothing ever materialized... if you choose to think that I make up news reports, then go ahead, but I can guarantee you that I don't. Anyway, in retrospect, I'm glad that didn't materialize... I'd much rather take the Spurs as they are now and add a major free agent in the summer of 2003 (after Robinson's retirement) than have Mr. Choker himself on the team... The Cat is a Spurs fan, A HUGE one, and I realized long ago that its no use in arguing with him about the Spurs Not really. I like the Spurs, but I can cheer against them. I do it all the time when the Rockets play them. It's just that your bias against the Spurs is so extreme that it's hard for you to rationalize when someone even hints at something positive involving their team. There's nothing wrong with that; I can be the same way with the Lakers. Often sheer hatred can cloud our judgment, especially in the heat of the moment.
That is all I need to read... The Spurs go to the line 42 times, and you think, "if anything, it was terribly biased against the Spurs". What the hell ever... Thank you Mr. Objectivity, I'm ejecting myself from this thread.
hey The Cat, i'm new here, are you a rockets fan too? From your moniker, I'd think you were a Rockets fan, but all I see you post is pro-spurs propaganda, so are you just a spurs fan? Are you The Cat because you lost a bet or something to a Rockets fan?
Sonics: I know you're being coached, but in case anyone was seriously wondering, I'll clarify: of course I'm a Rockets fan. Wouldn't spend the time I do here or have 5800+ posts if I weren't. However, there are a couple of things I try and avoid. Primarily, I try and avoid repetitiveness and "I agree" type posts. A lot of my thoughts are already discussed in the Rockets forum, and I don't really want to post if I don't have something meaningful to say. I'll throw in my two cents here and there, but a lot of the time I choose to resist posting opinions that have already been stated by multiple posters here. Second, it's more fun to talk playoff basketball than draft picks. Whether it's the Spurs or any other team, I'd mucch rather spend my time debating that than players in a draft that's over two months away. BGM: so if a team goes to the line over 40 times the officiating is in their favor? I'll remember that the next time the Lakers have a game like that at the line
That's not what I was implying. A team that gets to the line 42 times, has no right to complain about officiating, that doesn't mean that the officiating is in their favor, it just means that they shouldn't complain. If the Lakers got 40 free throw attempts, and their opponent only got around 20, you DEFINITELY won't see me say that officiating was "terribly biased against" them.
My apologies then... I misinterpreted what you meant. I disagree with your last assessment, but I'm not sure how I can qualify it. Personally, I don't care if a team goes to the line over 60 times; if most of those foul calls are obvious, they can still complain about the officials, IMO. But, like I said, there's nothing I can say to prove that, so I'll leave it at that.
Explain what could have been done differently? How bout Duncan actually playing good post defense and forcing scrubs like Baker and Jerome James into some tough shots. Duncan has been able to conserve energy on Defense his whole career because D Rob checks the other team's best interior player. When asked to guard someone at the other end, he's not as dominant. There's no excuse for guys like Baker and James to post up Duncan. He's just not a great one on one defender, never has been, though I'm sure being the ultimate Spurs homer that you are, you'll disagree. This is why IMO Duncan refuses to play Center. He knows that he won't be able to dominate against people his height. Look at the soft crap he put up against Shaq the last time the Spurs played LA. As for '00, the Spurs were not going to repeat with a healthy duncan that year. They were your classic 1 year wonder, like the NE Patriots or the BAL Ravens. Got a bunch of breaks 1 year in a half season. They had their chance to prove themselves last year and folded like the softies they are. No way does a Greg Pingballovich team beat a Phil Jackson team. I know you claim to be objective RE the spurs but when you say things like s. smith is not a defensive liability or B. Bowen is not an offensive liability or that D. Rob is just as good as he was 3 years ago, you lose credibility. Saying that if anything the calls were against the Spurs in game 2? They went to the line TWICE AS MUCH as Seattle!!!!! That isn't enough of a discrepancy for you? You proved what a Spurs homer you are with that statement. If the Sonics are so mediocre, why are they 3-3 against the Spurs this year?!?!? Don't give me that crap about the whole season doesn't matter. This isn't a HALF SEASON!!!!!
I grew up in Houston, I remember when the Rockets moved there and when Dream came to the U. of H., I spend significant bucks on league pass because of moving to Austin and being blacked out by the Spurs (and remember the preening Spurs fans when David won his MVP, and how Dream made him look silly), the Mavs are owned by a billionaire who can and will spend whatever it takes to improve his team and I'm sorry if I only have room for the Rockets in the recesses of my dim brain and that this is such a long sentence, but I'M A ROCKET FAN! Thank you. That felt good.
The Patriots are one year wonders before the next season has even started? That's sure objective... on Duncan: if his last game against Shaq (26 points, 11 rebounds, 8 assists) was soft, I'll take soft any day of the week. If an athletic NBA player gets the ball as deep as Baker and James were, they can get a quality shot against anyone, whether it be Shaq, Ben Wallace, or whomever. Players who aren't good one on one defenders aren't voted onto the league's all-defense team year after year. Also, last season, the Spurs hardly had a chance to prove themselves. They ran into a team that would've beaten almost any team in league history, including (believe it or not) at least one of the Rockets championship teams. No shame in advancing to the WCF and losing to a team that was simply great. BTW, on Popovich, there's virtually nothing to criticize him for this season. Popovich had to almost completely start over this season. Three of the five starters were new, and only six players from last season's roster returned. For him to have that team so good, and so fast (same record as last season) is nothing short of remarkable. It's a better coaching job than Phil Jackson walking into a situation with two of the best three players in the game and winning a championship. And on fouls, it really doesn't matter if the Spurs went to the line ten times more than Seattle. If they're the right calls (which they were), they're the right calls. Just because the officials get a few calls right doesn't mean they got them all right... Finally, in 99, the Spurs were 6-8 to start the season. Last year, Shaq and Kobe fueded until mid-March, and the Lakers were merely an above-average team until then. Both of those teams' early struggles didn't seem to cause much adversity come playoff time. In 95, the Rockets were 47-35 and the 6th seed, and won a title. It doesn't matter how you play to start the season... it's all about how you play going into the postseason and, of course, how you play when you get there.
Nice try to spin things. The Lakers didn't put Shaq on Duncan till late in the game. When they did, Duncan went to his soft repertoire and bricked about 4-5 in a row late in the game when he needed to step up. Not going to argue with your lame excuses for Duncan's lack of defensive intensity anymore. Even if you claim that once mighty studs like Jerome James or Vin Baker get the ball deep in the post (since is getting the ball at the foul line deep in the post by the way) then there's nothing anydefender can do, it's still Duncan's job to deny them that excellent position by playing with some intensity on defense. I remember you saying that Mo Taylor and Cuttino mobley were good defenders though, so you have a clear track record of homerism. So the Lakers would have beaten at least one of the Rocket title teams? Pure conjecture. They never played on the court, no one knows what would have happened. No way does a Hakeem Olajuwon team get absolutely killed by 30 points a night and flat out QUIT on the court. You see Cat, that's the problem I have with the Spurs. It's not that they lost to LA, because as you say LA was playing unreal bball, but there's no excuse to QUIT and ROLL OVER like they did. Philly, SAC, and POR all got beat, but at least they fought like MEN in their games and showed some HEART. All the Spurs did was perpetuate the well deserved soft label they've carried for almost a decade. Last thing: I'm sorry, but anytime a team is getting to the line twjce as much as their opponent, something is wrong.
Cat, using your own reasoning, why is it a given that either Rocket championship team would have lost to the Lakers of last year? I disagree, but would love to have watched such a series! And I know you said at least one of them, leaving some wiggle room, but I think both teams had such synergy with each other and their coach that they had an excellent chance to beat last years Lakers. (IMO, of course! )
