No asterisk* Any team that wins the title through the standard playoffs earned their championship. If a championship was awarded midway in the season to the team with the best record w/o a playoffs you have a different sotry. Besides, in our ring in 95 we only showed up for about 1/2 our regular season's games, Rudy, Hakeem and the rest have always known it is playoffs the count.
If you guys are going to use the logic that the regular season is meaningless, and that only the playoffs matter, than how can you possibly think the Spurs will beat the Lakers next year? I agree that the regular season is meaningless, but if that is the case, who cares if the Spurs win 60 and the Lakers struggle to 50? The Lakers have more than proven that when the playoffs roll around, they can instantly leave the inner turmoil behind and get on a roll. What is going to change this year? I don't care whether the Spurs improved or regressed this offseason-it's a mute point against LA when they play up to their considerable potential. And don't call it a fluke; by winning again this year amidst even greater controversy than the first time, they have proven that whatever distractions occur during the season are meaningless once the playoffs come, Kobe stops trying to win the scoring title and becomes what Phil himself calls " the best all-around player I have ever seen", and Shaq absolutely embarrasses every frontline in his way. Is getting Smith and Bowen going to help DRob cover Shaq? Of course not. If anything, Shaq will beat him even worse this year b/c he is just another year older. And I won't even bring up Cherokee and Bryant. I agree that they are still better than the Mavs, will probably get the second seed, and might even return to the WCFs this year. But they WILL NOT beat the Lakers unless Shaq or Kobe is injured. By my definition, having your season ended at the same time against the same opponent does not count as improvement!
The Lakers have more than proven that when the playoffs roll around, they can instantly leave the inner turmoil behind and get on a roll. They did it one time! (last season they were 67-15 in the regular season, and didn't have much turmoil) If you do something once, you'll automatically do it again? Every year? That makes no sense. The Rockets had a lackluster regular season in 1995, and finished with a 47-35 record, but put it all behind them for the playoffs and went on a tremendous run for a 2nd championship. We came back in 1996 with virtually the same cast of characters, had a lackluster regular season, and we were swept out of the playoffs. We put the regular season problems behind us one year like the Lakers-- why didn't we do it again?
Cat and mrspur: Come on... haven't you guys noticed that even people who don't have grudges against the Spurs are pretty pessimistic about their chances? Verse, while I agree with some of his assessments, obviously just doesn't like them. I think zrb's "no heart" assertion is way off. But Desert Scar and dc rock are hardly "spurs haters." I'm not either. I wanted them to win the championship in 99... I'll root for any of the Texas teams in the Finals against anyone else. Tim Duncan and Drobb are both classy guys. So is Steve Smith. I don't like Popovich much, but I don't hate teams for their coaches. But the Spurs did the following 1. Got an aging ex-star in exchange for a rising star. 2. Lost a young, talented, but slightly unmotivated PF and instead managed to get Bruce Bowen, he of the 38% fg%. that's absolutely hideous. Verse is right: the true value of a player should be defined by the point differential he provides the team from his opposite on the other team. Bowen is going to be at a big negative, there. If he limits Kobe to 20, but scores 6, does it matter? 3. Drobb is a year older. You people seem to think he's in some sort of stasis box. Remember Hakeem? Great player one year... old man the next. I don't think anything that drastic will happen to Robinson... but it's getting to be a factor. 4. A. Daniels is a very mediocre starter. Very few are convinced that he's capable fo running the point. He's very athletic... but doesn't shoot that well, and isn't a very good passer. Johnson had been in that offense for years. The Lakers: 1. Grant wasn't nearly as important as Horry or Fox. I think Walker is about even with him in terms of value. In any event, this isn't much of a loss or a gain. 2. Mitch Richmond is still a good player. Possibly as good as Steve Smith. He stagnated on that Wizards team, but he's still a lights out shooter. I think you guys are a bit harsh on the people who think the Spurs will regress. You're acting like we all just hate the Spurs, and that's not true. We're not being irrational.
But Desert Scar and dc rock are hardly "spurs haters." DC Rock has never said anything positive on the Spurs since the day he started posting. He even started a thread seriously predicting for the Spurs to go out in the first round. I'm a Rockets fan, just like you and Scar, so I think my opinions of objectivity are not any less valid. I disagree with the assessment of the majority here, but who's to say the majority is always right? Did the majority think we would win our two championships when we did? Honestly, it doesn't bother me if 99.99% of the world thinks the Lakers will beat the Spurs... it doesn't make me believe in my ideas any less. I've been over the situation a number of times, and I can't imagine how any "objective" fan could predict the Mavs ahead of the Spurs. Frankly, I don't understand how any objective fan could predict the Lakers to dominate the league again, like they did in the playoffs. There are several objective fans in this thread, but to be totally honest I can't see how the Mavs got better this offseason and the Spurs worse, and I definitely can't see how the Mavs will pass the Spurs in the standings. I can always be wrong, but I don't see either one of those predictions as objective.
I agree with CAT. I am also a Rocket fan, but I feel that the Spurs will be right back there again next year. I still think that the Spurs could have beat LA without DA, AD played hard and did well. Lakers just got hot at the right time. Fischer 8-9 from 3-point line in one game. Tim Duncan suddlenly couldn't score in one game. Granted LA outplayed SA, but I am not convinced that they are better. I especially don't believe that because SA got swept this past year that they are doomed for sure next year. Time to let David get more involved in scoring then in the past. (Instead of waiting until the Laker series). BESIDES...... Look out Spurs here come the ROCKETS!!!
1. if all that matters is the playoffs, then why not just have a 25 game season??? it was an *championship regardless of who won. it just so happened to be the spurs. 2. tim duncan didn't just happen to not be able to score. he was smothered - IN SINGLE COVERAGE - by robert horry. 3. anytime you replace three starters with three bench players, it is a losing proposition. The Cat, Mr. Spur, et al, just because i don't like the spurs, does not mean that i cannot be objective. i can separate my dislike from honest assessment. case in point: i don't like philadelphia that much. however, i can appreciate their *desire* and abilities. same goes for utah. ii haven't had much positive to say about the spurs because they - IMO - have had a negative offseason. SEE #3 ABOVE. haven, thx for the comments.
Cat: What do you mean the Lakers didn't have turmoil last season? Kobe implied he might ask to be traded, he and Shaq battled for top dog all season, and Rider was a headache. If there was no problem, why were Shaq and Kobe mockingly calling eachother the best player in the world and "my idol"? The answer: they both finally realized that no matter what differences they might have in personality, while on the court together, they were unbeatable. Each realizes as long as he has the other, they make eachother better. No matter what conflicts occur in the regular season, both understand that the only legacy that really matters is the number of championships won. If Shaq wants to truly be recognized as the best big man ever, he has to enter the realm of Russel and Abdul-Jabbar as a winner. If Kobe wants to be mentioned in the same breath with MJ, he has to approach those six rings. Even if the Lakers never again regain their form of last postseason, how many games will they lose this time, maybe 3 or 4? The entire western conference could not scratch out a single win against them for over a month! What have SA, Sacto or anyone else done this offseason to make you believe they can now beat the Lakers 4 times in 7 games? Until Duncan has a partner equal to Kobe, he has no chance against Shaq and the Lakers, neither does anyone else.
Is Steve Smith a bench player on most teams in the NBA? No. Same for AD. Is Ferry suddenly better than Bowen simply because Ferry was a starter last season? Bowen started in 72 games last season. You think Ferry>Bowen? You think 57 year old Terry Porter > AD? Gee, why do you think you receive criticism for your takes?
and the fact that you're saying that another team's bench players are better than the starters you had last year is a clear indication on how poor the spurs' 1, 2, & 3 are and were.
As for LA...we shall see. My assessment has been that LA is obviously tops in the league until proven otherwise, then SA or Sacto is next. I think the new rules will benefit Sacto greatly, as will the Bibby for White Funk move. As for SA, there has been a significant improvement. The main problem is that they had the flexibility to do more, something that will hurt them long term. LA did seem to get everything together at the right time. I wouldn't discount those who question whether or not that will continue. We'll see. I think the loss of Grant and his replacement by Walker is a significant decline. Richmond was a nice acquisition...(of course those who are knocking the Spurs' acquisition of the 32 year old Steve Smith as being old seem to think that the 37 year old Mitch Richmond is swell). Fisher is out again with a foot injury. That's not good news if it is a chronic injury in the same foot. I think the rules changes benefit the Spurs more than most seem to think. The Spurs have always been about defense since Popovich took over. I think the moves they have made fit in with this mode of thinking. Of course, if you think that replacing Danny Ferry with a 2nd team all-NBA defense player in the starting lineup is a bad move, but replacing Horace Grant with Mr. 'couldn't get off the bench behind Malik Rose' is a great move, then perhaps you wouldn't get it.
MrSpur, why are you so hung up on this 2nd team all defensive jibba jabba? haven't i already brought up mr. pippen repeatedly? 2nd team all defensive jibba jabba really doesn't mean anything, sorry. and you have YET to refute a simple premise that i have repeated time and time again: IF YOU HOLD YOUR MAN TO HIS AVERAGE (18-25 PTS.), YET ONLY SCORE 8, DID YOU REALLY WIN? bruce bwen will have to do more than be 2nd team all defensive jibba jabba. he'll have to learn to put the ball in the hole. *** as for bibby for j-won't, we are in COMPLETE agreement. j-dudd is horrible. *** as for comparing mitch richmond and steve smith, you've got to be kidding. people are ok with the richmond acquisition because he's not being asked to step into the starting lineup and be a 3rd leg to the offense. he's being asked to come off the bench and stretch the defense. smith is being asked to be the 3rd leg. big difference... now think about it. smith and richmond are very, very close talent wise (as far as what they bring to the court). but on the lakers, richmond will probably be a 15-23 minute player. on the spurs, smith is gonna have to log serious minutes (~30+) and carry a burden significantly larger than richmond is being asked to carry. i'm not saying he CAN'T do it. i'm saying that the outlook is dimmer than you paint it. i'm saying you would have been better with DA. i'm saying that at his age - as a jump shooting guard - he shouldn't be relied upon on a championship team... he won't suck, don't get me wrong. but i don't think he'll be nearly enough. and his defense - or lack of - will show up in tim and dave's stats lines under the PF category. *** and, yes, the rule changes WILL benefit san antonio. but, keep in mind that those same rule changes will be available for other teams to use AGAINST san antonio. yes, the same zone and hand check rules you keep harping on will apply to the spurs on offense, too.
Sorry, I don't get paid to babysit you. Briefly.... It was a 50 game season, everyone faced the same conditions. Some even say the 50 game season was more demanding given the compressed nature of the schedule. In any event, there was a season, there was a playoffs, and someone dared to win. So just STFU already. Are your takes normally this weak? It's bad enough seeing the "2nd rate crap" you spew on this board. Fine, you hate SA. BFD. lol Gee, the Rockets aren't my fave team, but somehow I don't feel the need to slam them all the damn time. Find something to do...a hobby perhaps? By the time Horry was guarding Duncan in those games, he had help...definitely before Duncan made his move. You conveniently forget Horace Grant, who did more straight up to harass Duncan and get him off his game in Game 1 (a key to the series, I think) than Horry ever did. Of course, you want us to believe that losing Grant and replacing him with 2nd string Walker is not a step down...of course it doesn't matter that Walker was on the bench in SA, right? It only matters when the Spurs end up with a player who was on the bench in talent laded Portland as their starter, then that is a step down. Get a clue. ? So all that matters in your analysis is whether or not a player started last season? Not whether the player acquired is better than the player he is to replace? That is ignorance. Anyways, going by your guideline, Bowen started for Miami in 90%+ of their games. Therefore there is no drop off between him and Ferry because both started last season, right? LOL What an idiot. AD>TP Bowen>Ferry and SS>=DA for the Spurs system. The only thing that is truly 2nd rate is your takes.
Actually, it definitely sounds like Richmond will be starting. Oh no. The Spurs "3rd leg" is Steve Smith. Only in your world of Spurs hate is this so awful. Richmond is 5 years older, had a significant knee injury last season and missed a significant number of games. Smith missed 1 game in the last 2 seasons due to the flu....and managed to put in the minutes last season that you claim he couldn't. That's fine. The Spurs win by their defense. Always have. Handchecking doesn't affect those poor Spurs and their inside-outside game as much as it does other teams.
you know what MrRome, you're right. the spurs are the greatest team in the nba. they have a winning tradition and are the class of the league. their dynasty is awe inspiring. just be prepared to send my tix once you're officially delared a loser.
There is no way to get around this. AD and Bowen make real nice back-ups. But AD would be the starting PG for less than 1/4 of the teams in the league, and Bowen less than 1/5. Bowen isn’t going to get any better either, near 30-year old swingmen don’t add new things to their game. Smith, if he can stay healthy, would start from somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 half the teams in the league. Further, instead of having AD to back up the guards like last season, he is forced to start. All this means the Spurs are counting on two things: 1) AD to make a transition to a new primary position and as a starter seemlessly, and in fact produce the best season he ever has. 2) Smith to physically hold up and maintain performance for longer minutes than he has for the previous 2 years (he does appear to always put his body on the court, but what shape his body is in is the question, there is no question his knee trouble inhibits him). These are huge question marks, along with the potential chemistry problems of having only 2 retaining starters, that in my mind are much bigger ones than they faced last year. On other matters, again no 99*. They were the class team that year in both the playoffs and an over 50 game regular season. There is no question in my mind about their earned ring. Also lets break down the Lakers versus Spurs. Compare the 2 best players of each? The Spurs got killed because Shaq and Kobe dominated their match-ups, while only TD could do so for the Spurs. Further, the Lakers had much more success starting with single teams on TD than the Spurs did on Shaq. None of this has changed. What about the surrounding pieces? The Lakers have a stable of playoff tested and more well-rounded role players than the Spurs. Adding Mitch, Hunter and Walker to Horry, Fox, and Fisher makes them have less questions than they had last year. Last year they got 0 out of Rider, 0 out of Harp and Horry proved to be more valuable than H Grant. They figure to get something out of Mitch and Hunter, and Horry/Walker is only slightly worse than Horry/Grant. Any one who thinks there is a "good chance" for a Laker demise is really, really, thinking with the emotional/homey side of their brain. Finally, my belief is the Spurs will not have a team as good as the one that finished the 99 or 01 regular seasons. Still, I think they will likely be the 3rd or 4th best team in the league (aside from the Lakers, I truly think only Sac is now better, though Portland or the 6ers could end up better too). I don’t believe for an instant the Mavs will be better than them next year.
