Congrats to this team that no one gave a chance. Some even said they would go down easier than the Nuggets. Personally, I don't connect this team to the old Sonic teams of the past that tormented us so I like them. They had a great run that nobody expected at the beginning of the year. In their first game, they were blown out by the Clippers by 30. I love it when teams go down fighting to the end. Tim Duncan was just too great.
Props to Seattle, I agree it just doesn't feel like the same team that was such a pain for us (Payton, Kemp, Perkins, Scrimp(sp?), Hawkins, Cage). Even Nate, the one holdover, I had the most respect for of that former punk bunch. Like us, the injury bug killed Seattle. Dallas and Spurs could not get any more lucky. Spurs really have a knack for these things (in 2003, Webber--helped the Spurs and Mavs that year, also Dirk, Fox, George), I'd like the Rockets to get some of their mojo.
I respect them a lot because they gave everything they had (and then some) to the Spurs, and they showed a lot of tenacity and toughness in the face of the Spurs. On the other hand, I am left with ill feelings towards them because of a thug like Fortson who is just out there trying to break someone's back. What a fu*ing loser
I agree completely on Fortson. He and Jerome James were the main reason I kept saying if we played the Sonics in the first round it would be a physically bruising series. By playoff time, the sorry Forston was nothing more than a sideshow and cheap shot artist. But as with Ron Artest and the Pacers, the one rotten apple doesn't spoil the great year they had and the character the team showed against the Spurs. O what a healthy Rashard and Radmanovich would have meant.
Bruce Bowen is well known as the dirtiest player out there. The DA injury probably lead to SA getting sweeped, instead of like 4-1 or 4-2 for the Lakers. I am not saying the Spurs have been immune to injury, but compared to the Kings for instance they have had a lot of breaks fall there way.
Not really ... one year they lost their best player (Duncan), another year they lost their 2nd-best player and best perimeter player (Anderson). The team that got all the breaks was the Lakers. Injury-free in all 3 title runs.
The Spurs were injury hit in two possible runs. In 2001 the DA injury perhaps cost them a sweep, but not a loss. You could argue with TD (2000) they might have competed, but I think they were woefully old and inadequate on the wings anyway--why they got DA if I recall. The Lakers had 2 runs killed by injury. The Malone injury last year, and pretty much all their SFs in 2003. Even in 2003, without Fox or any kind of 3, I think it took the Spurs 6 games to beat them and a big Bob Horry 3 miss or it goes 7. Then that Spurs team drew Dallas w/o Dirk, who got there b/c Sac lost Webber. The Spurs got unbelievable big breaks all through 2003, and I think it still took them 6+ games in most series. This year smells like that. After Seattle with no Lewis or Radm, watch them catch Phx w/o JoeJ, than watch Shaq break down after beating Detriot leaving Miami less than full strength. Still, the hard luck team has to be the Kings. Probably beat the Lakers in 02 if healthy (Peja was less 100%), and IMO probably beat a healthy Lakers or Spurs team in 03 if healthy--at worst they had a fighting chance to beat either, they had the full strength Lakers team in deep sh** the year before.
True. It's funny if you think back, Shaq would have missed one of those playoff runs if he didn't have "the alleged nagging toe" problem the lakers PR put out. Until one day kobe implied why he was really sitting out games. But hey, it worked, and you can't fault the lakers for benching him.
Looks like you have some sort of bias that's clouding your perspective here Scar. I mean, if a team you don't like gets an injury, they weren't going to win anyway, right? Yet if it's another team, they were deprived of winning. The only thing that killed LA last year was Detroit. The one win they could manage came off a lucky Bryant shot at the end. An old broken down Karl Malone wasn't going to save them - I think they were pretty much blown out in every other game. LA never had to play without Shaq or Bryant, their two best players - this happened to the Spurs TWICE. I'm not about to feel sorry for them just because RICK FOX went down. Geez. The Kings choked away their shot with their best team. Chris Webber showed he can't be the best player on a championship team. They really didn't deserve another shot after that PATHETIC performance (Game 5 I think it was; blowing a 30-pt lead). The Spurs may play down to their level of competition, but that doesn't mean they're not the best team right now or in the years they won. They just lack killer instinct.
I don't get the impression all their players will be back next year. This might be as far as they go.
Saying Anderson was their 2nd best player is a huge stretch. They were just DESTROYED by LA that year, by 25 ppg, so no way would DA have made any difference. Tim Duncan was humiliated by Robert Horry's defense that series and looked like a girl. They didn't have a Bruce Bowen so they had no answer for Kobe Bryant. Those games were all over by halftime at the latest. The year they lost Duncan they lost to a Suns team without Jason Kidd. That Spurs team also was pre-Bowen, parker, ginobili...their guards sucked and that team was headed nowhere. Spurs have had uncanny luck with other teams stars getting hurt. I don't think they beat the Sonics without half of Seattle's team hurt this year. Every team they beat in 03 had one injury after another to key players. Ginobili is also the biggest flopper in the NBA right now; without those BS calls he calls they're a lot more beatable team, not to mention Bowen is allowed free reign to molest your best perimeter player. Bowen could literally be called for 20-25 fouls a game. Guess the new hand check rules apply to all players BUT Bowen.
I was routing for the Lakers to lose against the Kings and Pistons (pretty much everyone they have played in the playoffs except Pippen's Portland team like 5 years ago and the Spurs). I still believe the Pistons beat the Lakers with Malone, but it is no sure thing--I don't see how I am biased for the Lakers there. I also believe the Kings probably beat them in 2002 had not Peja got the ankle or something, b/c that series was so close anyway even with the Lakers getting freak breaks. As for the Spurs win over the Lakers a couple years back, it wasn't just Fox, that series was like 2.5 (Shaq/Kobe/Horry) on five. I think they not only lost Fox (4th best player), George and Fisher (probably their 5th and 6th best players) missed key games as well (Shaq missed a lot with nagging injuries too). I forget in the end which CBA guy they had to start at the SF spot--but it was kinda like us trying get away with Padget/Bowen at the 4 spot. Further, the Spurs didn't extactly dominate a weak Lakers team, Dirk-less Mavs team, the same EC fodder the Lakers creamed (4-0) the year before, and never had to play the other strong team of that year (full Kings). They won the title fair and square--but they had a lot of lucky breaks and the unbiased view is they easily could have lost had opponents been full strengths. Heck, the Rockets may not have won ring had not Barkley gotten so banged up for a game 7 too (KJ almost won the game with a 25% Barkley). Admitting this doesn't take away the ring, but it is probably true. As for 1999, then the Spurs clearly were the best team and dominated--so you can't say the 2003 just lacked the killer instinct (e.g., Duncan) or that I can't acknowledge when the Spurs have been the best out there. IMO for 2003 it was a toss up between the Kings and Lakers--the two teams who decided the ring the year before, and the Spurs. We will never know, but if the Lakers and Kings were full strength, no,I don't think the Spurs get the ring, it is certainly questionable.
Not a huge stretch at all to say he was 2nd-best. Although I would now say that it was probably a toss-up b/t him and Robinson. Still, he was huge for them that year (Portland certainly thought so), and in a series where they were killed by an athletic perimeter player, losing their best athlete, who just happened to play on the perimeter, was a giant blow. I'd say it was a loss equal to taking Fox and Fisher away from LA that year. The series would have been close had that happened. Also, the first two games weren't over by halftime. In fact, SA was up double-digits I think at half of the second game. After going down 0-2 and having to go on the road, yeah, I think SA felt it was over at that point and the scores of the last two games reflect that. Kidd did play and play well in the deciding game, but so what? All that shows is Duncan's value. Losing the best player in the game is going to hurt a team dramatically. I believe SA's guards were similar if not the same as the team that won it all the year before, so that wasn't really the issue. They're clearly a better team than Seattle this year, w/ or w/o Lewis. I say LA had more luck in their 3 title runs, all of which were injury-free.
Duncan has never been the best player in the game during his time, that's always been Shaq, who has dominated Duncan every time they are matched up. Saying Derek Anderson would have turned the most lopsided series in recent playoff memory into something close and then saying that Dirk's injury or Rad/Lewis/Allen's injuries had nothing to do with Seattle's loss of a very closely contested series which nearly went 7 games just shows that maybe you should change your handle to "The Spur!" I remember the Suns were without more than just Kidd that year (even if he did play in 1 of the 4 games). I don't remember who it was (maybe Marion or Hardaway), but no way was Duncan better than Shaq that year. 2000 was Shaq's best year and LA won close to 70 games and would have just killed SA that year anyway if SA got past Phoenix (we saw what happened in 2001). Kidd's a superstar in his own right and missed basically the whole series.
I actually like Fortson. I think he would be great on the Rockets (not advocating getting him, but I'm just saying he's a guy I think ppl would like if he was on your team) He's a bruiser, and he fouls hard and sometimes goes over the line...but it's not like he undercuts guys on fast breaks. He fouls damn hard and will send a message...and I have no problem with that. I have a much bigger problem with the NBA calling more and more flagrant fouls when it's just part of the game (i.e. the one where Joe Johnson got fouled and dislocated his orbital 2 weeks ago...a hard foul, but Stack went straight for the ball and Joe just fell hard) Everyone wants to protect people and make sure nothing bad happens and all...let them play a little physical.
I disagree. Fortson became a liability to the Sonics late in the year and in the playoffs. All he did was come in and foul without contributing much. It was obvious he was a marked man by the refs. Ask the fans in Seattle how fed up they were with him this year (starting about mid-season). He was out of control on the floor and in the lockerroom. For the next 2 years, the Sonics will pay him $13 million to do almost nothing but foul unless he gets his head on straight. The flagrant foul called on Stackhouse was rightfully withdrawn a day later (wasn't it?). Moot point. The league MUST crack don't hard vicious fouls. After what happened in Detroit (and the P.R. damage it caused), the NBA cannot afford to have physical play get out of control. Nobody wants the NBA to become ballet, but goons like Fortson degrade the product IMO.
