Parker started as a rookie at the tender age of 19. He just hit 1000 games played in his career, which has been a (general) wall for a lot of guys. He's having a career year so far this season... but I'd be worried about a potential sharp decline in the next 2 years.
now that harden is with us, don't the spurs match up better? gotta love pop. He will go Marine Drill sergeant on timmy, parker, or decolo. it doesn't matter the rank of stardom.
Another good team that is too old to do it when it matters, the playoffs. This is a great regular season team though. I wouldn't knock that.
That's an excuse for why they lost four games in a row. We could look at any individual game and figure out reasons. Fact is: It happened, because the Spurs chose not to guard Ibaka but rather to guard Durant close, and they got burned. Had they guarded Ibaka closer, then Durant and/or Westbrook and/or Harden probably would have burned them.
...... if you don't think ibaka and perkins going 18-20 on mostly jumpers is luck I don't even know what to say. Durant was 13-20 that game by the way. I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that a team that loses isn't awful. Close games are essentially toss ups. Stuff happens.
Yep, stuff happened FOUR GAMES IN A ROW! Year before that, stuff happened and the Grizzlies summarily dismissed them in the 1st round. The year before that, stuff happened at the Suns destroyed them 4-0 in the first round. The year before that, stuff happened at the Mavs destroyed 4-1 in the 1st round. That's right. Stuff happens. And you are going to claim that OKC won four games in a row by luck, then why can't I say the Spurs never should have won Game 1, then. Huh? I guess only OKC was lucky, and not the Spurs. Spurs underestimated Ibaka, and they got burned.
And the Spurs won 20 in a row before that. If the team went 20-4 with the 4 losses spaced between the 24 games, they would be considered to be dominant. When they went up 2-0 and were on their 20 game winning streak, everyone was freaking out that this might be the greatest Spurs team ever. And now they don't even have a shot of making the finals? Give me a break. It's the same type of people who say the Patriots haven't won since Spygate.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with these people? People that are basing their opinions based on what happens after the season ends, instead of projections made during the season or playoffs? NOBODY can predict the future. So when someone says the Spurs have zero shot, clearly that's overreaching. I mean the Seahawks are potentially a horrible last minute defensive drive away from being in the superbowl (potentially). stuff happens. BUT, if I'm going to base a prediction on anything, I'm going to base it on what ultimately happens. And what has ultimately happened with the Spurs, repeatedly now, is that against one team or another, come playoffs time, their age is exposed. I went to this game and really thought OKC had it. But in the 4th quarter they got Westbrooked a bit. They couldn't get their offense to work smoothly and it permeated their whole game - offense and defense. To be fair, KD was not able to shake his defenders. but still, the thunder had a 9 point lead heading into the 4th.
Yeah that Spurs always get destroyed in the playoffs... expect for 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007..... Those do count right? Clearly they are an old team and they haven't won in a few years, but they are a threat. OKC is a better team and would probably beat them, but it's hard to knock the Spurs for that.
The Clippers, Grizzlies both have no hope of reaching the Finals, they are playoff fodder because they didn't make it last year and the years before that... according to people in this thread, that's how it works.
Awesome org, best in NBA, perhaps the best in any pro sport. Give them credit. They have absolutely maximized TD's career. It would be funny if Ainge tossed SA a sweetheart deal on PP or KG just to wreak havoc in the West. :grin:
I hate it when people say because you didn't win you apparently had no shot of winning and there's something wrong with you. They completely ignore the fact that people get hot and cold. That plays change games and that you need to play like 25 games against each other at least to really tell which team is better. I find it ridiculous that if Harden didn't make a crazy 3 after losing the ball that had a very low percentage shot of going in, the Thunder would be getting questioned as chokers and the Spurs would be heroes. The Pats in the same way were 2 crazy plays away from 5 superbowls. The Tyree catch and the Welker drop. **** happens in sports. You can't predict it. The better team doesn't always win. The greatness of the Spurs and Patriots is the fact that they are always in the position to win and set themselves up. That's basically all you can do in the NBA. You can't guarantee a title. You have to hope that things break your way. Like even the Lakers - Thunder series was a lot closer than people remember. A couple of plays go the other way and it would have been super interesting. I'm not saying the Thunder got lucky or anything. I'm just saying that basketball games change on a couple of plays. All you can really hope for is to get in the conversation.
I kind of wish they beat the thunder last year. Then the finals may have ended up with a miami loss, instead of a choking thunder team.
every year pop sits his bench for the playoffs and duncan and manu lose it for everybody. it's so annoying.
Except its not just stuff happening. It's both teams losing to teams that expose their weakness. The patriots don't lose against the texans, or otherwise struggle. Until they play teams with aggressive defensive that can get to Brady with schemes that don't require obvious blitzing with tons of man to man. The spurs are generally struggling every year with the same type of opponent. Young, highly athletic with some playoff experience. For all the hits and colds as you note the spurs were hotter than anyone and took the first two games, only to still lose to the thunder. The thunder just WERE better. And hey are better this year. And while I would t out money on the clippers over the spurs I'd give them a better shot this year, too.
The Grizz really had a lot of playoff experience when they beat the Spurs.... Especially with Manu's injury. There are close games. Yeah elite teams avoid bad games as much as they can't but after a point you just can't. The Spurs aren't good enough to blow away everyone in the West. I honestly don't think the Thunder are that much better than everyone else. It's gonna come down to some plays that can go anyway.
they won't win it all. They'll make noise and do well (barring injury), but extra care and rest only works in the regular season. After a certain point, age catches up to you in the playoffs.
I think Duncan this year is significantly better (especially compared to 2 years ago). Spurs, Clippers, Thunder all have good shots. I think the Warriors and Grizz are definitely dark horses to win an extra series and upset one of the top 3. Maybe even the Nuggets. I just think the WC playoffs will be awesome. I really hope the Lakers get the 8 seed over Utah as a basketball fan.
