revisionist history now? the spurs were tied with dallas 1-1 when Dirk got hurt in the 4th Quarter of game 3 in a close game. Dominating the series up to that point? My a$$. If people think this Spurs team is playing a high quality caliber of bball right now, i don't even know what to say. It's dsgusting bball. The scores in that ugly NY-Hou series were like 94-90, 93-89. The series DID seem ugly at the time, but it seems like a masterpiece that belongs in the Louvre after seeing this year's joke of a series. All these turnovers, bricked FT's, etc. Just terrible basketball.
-Not at all. Houston knocked off some great, HEALTHY teams in that 95 run. Had Barkley and Karl Malone gotten hurt that year when we played PHO and UTA and the Rockets still struggled to eek out some ugly wins, then it'd be comprable to what SA is doing now. The MJ argument is not even true, because he did play in 95 and his playoff stats that year exceeded his stats in the 96-98 postseasons. Not a relevant comparison at all. -Additionally, the main difference is that the Rockets were playing great bball back then at a very high level. No one argues that. Hakeem was playing out of his mind, Drexler was a 1 man fast break, Horry was raining clutch 3 after cluth 3, and Cassell was emerging as a sparkplug PG. What's the trademark of these Spurs? They are not a team with many clutch players and the majority of their players flat out choke at the FT line in close games. If they were playing great ball like they did in 99, people would be giving them props. If you think it's just rockets fans who think this series and SA are setting back bball, check out some of the media reports. -It's ironic that everyone says the 99 team deserves an *. That team would wipe with the floor with this group of spurs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2003/story?id=1565162
Well they don't look like it...but they are. What teams look like a championship team??? Well the Spurs beat and eliminated them all...
The Spurs don't look challenged to me. The Nets are playing their best . . .but i don't feel like the spurs are. . . . The spurs look to be faltering and have yet to play their best game and they are STILL up a game Rocket River
Should we be surprised that the Spurs are playing down to the level of their opponent but just good enough to beat the Nets? Everyone said the "Western Conference Finals" was the series, which would determine who the NBA champs, are going to be. Spurs don't need to bring their "A" game, not even their "B" game to beat the Nets. <B>Side note:</B> Nets coach Byron Scott should be playing Dikembe Mutombo as the starting center. Mutombo is the only one who can even attempt to slow down Tim Duncan, one on one. I think it’s been established that K. Martin can’t stop Duncan without fouling out and triple/double teaming Duncan doesn’t work considering the supporting cast is 6 ft 10 or shorter while Tim is a legit 7 ft tall. If anything Mutombo has the mental advantage of being a 4 time defensive player of the year, 7 ft 2, one heck of a wing span, and a shot blocking specialist. Yet, this guy doesn’t seem to get the green light to go out and stop Duncan? I’m not suggesting that the Nets can beat the Spurs with Mutombo on the floor but I think it’s safe to say that they do have a better chance. If Mutombo doesn't get more playing time, Scott should be looking over his shoulder to see who his replacement is next year.
Would you believe that one of the radio stations in San Antonio that I listen to on the drive home are already playing "We Are the Champions" at least once every half hour? If the Nets knew perhaps they'd be inspired to play them even harder than they do. For the love of all that is decent, the Nets must win this series. My sanity hangs in the balance!
