TheFreak, first, i am patting myself on the back. correct. second, i'll be the first to admit that the spurs put on a hell of a run at the end of the season. third, what i was right about is two-fold: a) they are a worse team than last year. i don't give a damn what the record says...they played an unmotivated la team with a hurt Goliath and still got their asses handed to them. last year's team was multi-faceted. they had veteran leadership, they had a penetrating, creating 2 guard, they had a better david robinson...this year - especially against the lakers - they were tim and the 11 bricklayers.... b) bruce bwen was a negative vs kobe... i'm man enough to say the truth....can't say everyone else is, though.
How can anyone seriously argue whether the Spurs were better last year than this year, or vice versa? It's like arguing whether a concrete speed bump slowed a car down more than an asphalt speed bump. If both teams had been fully healthy, the Lakers would have swept.
This is the first time I've heard you acknowledge their season-ending run....not sure if you would've ever done it had I not brought it up. Regarding a): I think this year's playoff team was probably better than last year's, due to Tony Parker, along with Anderson being injured last year. Even with Robinson's injury this year, I still think Parker makes them better compared to the no-DA team of last year. On b): One, pretty much every two-guard is going to be a negative versus Bryant. That's not exactly a bold prediction. Two, it wasn't just Bowen who replaced DA, it was Bowen and Steve Smith. Smith completely sucked. I thought Bowen did an excellent job (kept Bryant at his average with a lower fg percentage) -- had Smith done what he's done throughout his entire career (including last year vs. LA), SA definitely wins at least game 4. Smith couldn't hit a shot, which is uncharacteristic of him. On the sig: yep, someone said that....pretty awesome huh? I had the name down there at first, but I don't want to embarass anyone like that so I took it off. Swopa: using that logic, we can't talk about any other team in the NBA other than the Lakers. I can only spew so much Lake-hate, you know....gotta talk about something else sometimes.
Not to join in the patting but: Both verse and I harped on Bowen's offense immediately after it was clear he was being counted on as a starter, and we were right. This doesn't mean he wasn't a good signing, they couldn't have found anyone better at around a million bucks. But nontheless he isn't the kind of player to get them over the hump. Both verse and I said Smith, in his broken older and more unidimensional form, was not an adequate replacement for DA. It doesn't matter what DA didn't do for his new team loaded with other quality swingmen, it was what he was doing for SA that no longer was there. We both said AD was questionable as a PG and as a starting NBA player, and it turned out he never even could beat out a rookie (see below) or play much at the 1 even as a back-up. Correct again. We both said couting on any rookie to be the playoff PG is risky and it was. TP has a lot of potential, but he made way too many mistakes in critical situtions. He should not have had to be in the position he was in this year. This debate wasn't about did the Spurs do as well as they could once they had pissed off DA, the debate was that SA was worse with DA gone, AJ gone, and Elliott retired. I personally think if the Spurs had last year's squad with a healthy DR they might well have beaten this years Laker's team. If the Spurs could have resigned DA, kept DR healthy, and instead of Bowen somehow fenagled a 3 with adequate D and O (perhaps like Aaron McKey or Doug Christie) they would still be playing now. Once they didn't acquire a multi-threat wing player with good D and lost their 2nd most versitle player (DA), I knew they were cooked, and they were. Maybe they did the best they could under the circumstances, but the bottom line I and I think Verse were saying is they were not going to get a title with that team. They did play the Lakers better than I thought (as good as you can and still drop 4 of 5), but this is not the same Laker team as we will soon see.
Man, verse is now on my favorite posters list. Now that is one guy who knows how to embrace the Spur hate. They suck, always have sucked, and always will suck. And I don't care if you guys think I'm patting myself on the back or not. I'm hating. I ain't gotta back up a damn thing. Come on. Join the right side... Embrace the hate.
Mavs out - won't hear from their fans till next year. Sweet. Spurs out - if I only had a heeeeearrrrrtttt.... All is well with the world. Now if only the Rockets could get into the playoffs.
Bowen did his job in the playoffs. He gave the Spurs someone to defend Bryant straight up and make him work on the offensive end. That allowed the Spurs to apply more defensive effort to O'Neal and the rest of the Laker supporting cast. Bryant didn't erupt for 35+ points in this series like he did last year. Had the Spurs not had anyone to defend Bryant he would have gone off like last year. Bowen was a big part of the defensive scheme that had SA in every game. Remove him and unless the Spurs have an AI or a Paul Pierce, they don't win that series. What the series came down to was that the Spurs have one of the top 3 players in the NBA...unfortunately LA has the other two.
The Cat, I didn't realize my email click button thing didn't work; neither does yours. So just email me at kimmanh@tamu.edu Would you like some cheese with that whine? No, the Admiral was not fully healthy so the Spurs weren't 100%, but neither were Shaq and the Lakers. If the Spurs would've won, you'd be $20 richer today. Yes, the Spurs did shoot themselves in the foot a lot, but you still have to give credit to the Lakers for finishing the deal. One day you will have an epiphany and stop with the "could've, should've, would've" and realize that the Lakers are a better team than the Spurs (something that I still don't think you comprehend). Also, I do think that Bowen did a good job defensively. He stayed his ground a lot and didn't go for so many pump fakes. Kobe's just too good offensively. The key for me, besides the Spurs sucking in th 4th and the Lakers dominating, is the whole Steve Smith factor. He was supposed to be the wing threat. Never panned out. My opinion from day one of this deal was that the Spurs lost out big by losing D. Anderson. They really do need an athletic 2/3 who can put up points consistently.
Agree 100% with what Kim said. The excuses made by the Cat when it comes to the Spurs is pretty limitless. He becomes one riled kitty when the Spurs are called out on this board. Last year, the Derek Anderson injury was an excuse, this year it's D-Rob. If you watched D-Rob "play" you would see that he racked up more fouls than points or rebounds. The guy, at this point, stinks. SA misses Will Perdue more than they miss D-Rob.
You're right; I don't think LA is better than SA. The Spurs were the better team for the majority of the series, but due to injuries, poor coaching, terrible offensive execution, and bad luck, they lost several games they should've won. I don't think the Lakers are playing great basketball now; rather, they're gotten their share of bounces to make up for it. The Spurs just picked a bad time to get injured and lose offensive rhythm, and it showed. Anyway, I emailed you, so get back to me, Kim.
I watch Robinson play all the time... and he's still a very good player. The player you saw against the Lakers was probably abouy 70%, and not an accurate representation. Over the second half of the season, Robinson averaged about 14 points and 10 rebounds a game... I somehow doubt he averaged over 24 fouls. Believe me, KR, I want to be objective and talk basketball, but I can't. The extreme bias on this board against anything Spurs related is such that I basically have to defend all the bull**** that's flying around here, and I rarely get to actually talk basketball. BTW, verse, I meant to respond earlier, but unfortunately you didn't include all the statistics necessary to make a good evaluation. How about comparing the number of shots per game for Kobe compared to the regular season. He was over 30, at least in one game. This significantly limits the opportunities for Shaq and others to get better looks, especially when Kobe is shooting a low percentage. Also, though Kobe is getting his points, a good defender like Bruce Bowen doesn't make his defense double team. Does this necessarily show in Kobe's individual numbers? No. But, it does limit the number of open threes for the Laker shooters, and it does limit the number of alleyoops to Shaq and Horry inside. With Bowen, they have the luxury of sticking with their own man, instead of having to leave to double Bryant and leaving Fisher/Fox wide open for a three.
As I've said since the day I've been here, the Rockets... The only reason I post so much about the Spurs is that there is so much ignorance and bias against them in this forum, and there is virtually no one else left to try and defend them. I'd like to talk more Rockets basketball-- I miss it-- but lately all my time online has been used trying to defend the Spurs in this forum!
Have you ever thought maybe there's so much "bias" because it may be true? I mean, I could come in here talking about how the Earth is really flat and how everybody else is just biased against Flat Earthers.. Then again...I don't know much about what kind of Rivalry the Texas teams have goin..as over here in Los Angeles the Cali rivalry of Sacramento/LA has LA just outclassing the Kings time and time again. (By the way, that bait sure does look tempting to a few of you I'm sure)
Never occurred to him that maybe he's just extremely biased for the Spurs. Spurs fans. sigh Spurs suck. The hate is calling....calling...
That's just embarrassing. When one team beats another the same exact way three times in a row (after nearly beating them the same way in the previous game), it's laughable to say that luck is involved. You're right, Cat, that Bowen's defense forced Kobe and to some extent the entire Lakers team to shoot lower-percentage shots. Why hasn't it occurred to you that the Lakers' outstanding defense forced the entire Spurs team into the same situation in every 4th quarter? Tsk, tsk, tsk. When one team consistently strangles the other team's offense in crunch time, and consistently shuts down the other team's star player while its own star player consistently overmatches a quality defender to make the plays necessary to win the game ... it's not luck, or timing, or the ball bouncing a certain way. It's the first team being better than the second team. By a rather clear margin. And by the way, consistently superior coaching and the consistent ability to execute better when the game is on the line are key parts of what makes them the better team. That's why Phil Jackson has 8 rings -- his teams start with the best talent, and then he keeps them from being outcoached or outexecuted.
