Reply With Quote
These are humans like you and me playing this game, not robots. Some of you have unrealistic expectations. How can anyone complain about 23-3? They didn't win pretty enough for you? Get the outta here.
Well, the Lakers lost to Denver in Denver after resting for a day. The Spurs won in Denver 2nd game of a b2b.
The Lakers lost to the Phoenix Suns at home on 2 days rest. The Spurs beat the Suns in PHX.
The Lakers lost to the Jazz in Salt Lake City. The Spurs beat the Jazz in Salt Lake City.
The Lakers lost to Indy and Memphis. The Spurs beat Indy and Memphis.
The Spurs win 3 games in 4 days but don't look real sharp so they aren't contenders?
I guess the Lakers aren't either, then.
These are humans like you and me playing this game, not robots. Some of you have unrealistic expectations. How can anyone complain about 23-3? They didn't win pretty enough for you? Get the outta here.
For me the million dollar question is , can Pop's new european run and gun style top the Lakers? The big question is with the Lakers twin tower combination of Bynum and Gasol, do we stick to our european system of using a four like Bonner to stretch their defense as a counter mismatch to their size by using speed and the perimeter or do we try to matchup with size by using Tiago and TD together ? The thing is Tiago and TD have not played one minute together and I really don't think the combination is part of Pop's equation at all. So question has to be asked, do we need Tiago and Duncan to play together to match-up against the Lakers Bynum and Gasol ?
The other thing is if you guys havent noticied that since Anderson has gone down , we have been using Manu and even Neal at back-up small forward, serously will this work against Artest and Barnes of the Lakers ? With how confident both Neal and Manu have been lauching threes without hesitation ala European international teams, this might actually work to counter the Lakers big front court.
At the end , I'm still not convinced we can beat LA with this system and makeup of our line-up, however as we play stronger teams, things might become more feasible. It's happened before where small ball ( Golden state vs Dallas, Pheonix etc) so maybe it is possible.
So what's your point? I said Lakers and the Celtics, Im not focusing on eastern conference teams, this thread is about whether or not our team can contend for a championship, but to isolate your argument, I didnt just list the Celtics as a problem.
I agree with you about Odom and Gasol, but my point is that both are excellent rebounders.
I agree with you about the Lakers, Gasol and Odom. I didn't cover Dallas, but I dont disagree with your points. After reading your post im not sure if you're quoting me to disagree or reinforce what im saying.
I am actually pretty sure you didnt understand what angelbelow said. If so, you wouldnt have gone on about something that was not said and go on forever about things that were agreed upon. That logic escapes me.
LA only played 7 games in the Finals, for which I would hope they would be playing all out especially since it's for the championship and they don't have any games after game 7 and will be off for the rest of the summer.
IMO, LA and DAL are the only 2 teams in the West who can beat SA in a 7 game series. The others don't have the experience or haven't played together long enough/integrating new players (UTA, PHX). DAL always plays SA in close battles. LA usually beats SA and Phil Jackson seems to out coach Pop.
Playing against DAL and LA, SA is going to rely heavily on the Big 3 (2 of which are old). The regular season (even though there are back to backs) does not involve playing an elite team over and over again which is draining. Instead the schedule has the bottom dwellers, the young, inexperienced teams, the good but not great teams, etc interspersed with games against the elite teams. Quinn, Udoka, Anderson and looks like Splitter probably will not be playing at all. Neal and Blair will get some minutes but not as much as the RS.
This thread le is pretty stupid considering the date on the calender. Might as well say the 2011-2012 Spurs are not a championship caliber team yet.
The real le should be that the Spurs are not perfect and each subsequent response should simply read "no ".
Yeah the team with the best record in the NBA is not a championship contender.
ing morons GET A CLUE!
Amen to that brotha!
Kobe would disagree:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5921270
ohh jinx50
Hi !
it does not jinx if someone else says something and I agree, only when I make an original assumption or proclamation.
The spurs are playing themselves to a western conference finals loss to the Lakers as a best case scenario. I agree that the lakers or dallas are the biggest threats to San Antonio.
Spurs are one borderline star big short of being le contenders. The spurs have feasted on a weak schedule(winning many close games on last second shots or overtime against weaker opponents) and as the schedule gets tougher the record will normalize to the true strenght of the team.
The schedules for most of the elite NBA teams has been pretty soft. The NBA has gotten so top heavy that 2/3 of the league is considered soft now a days.
Thats why an early start guady record is not indicative of a championship team. Its all about matchups with the top teams and the verdict is still out on the Spurs because they haven't faced many of the top teams yet( mainly the Lakers).
If we're going to discuss schedule as a legitimate issue, then shouldn't the fact they've only lost 3 games be worth noting?
That would indicate that even if they play down to their opponents, they are making hay while the sun shines. They'll need these 'easy' wins down the road when things get tough to help them stay on top.
I'm with others confused by this thread. NO team plays 100% well with no mental mistakes all throughout an extremely long season.
Other than the Lakers, who would fall under your definition of a championshp team then? If you can win 22 out of 25 games and have the best record in the NBA, then you most certainly should be talked about as a contender. There is only about 6 teams in the NBA that have a chance of winning the championship, and yes, the spurs are one of them in my opinion.
Time will tell on the Spurs but one has to at least consider them a championship contender. Also who is to say a team like the Thunder will not knock off the Lakers this year and the Spurs may meet them or another team in the WCF.
Some interesting perpectives on how regular season and other things predict championship success:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...win_percentage
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...articleid=1075
Also, current odds by Vegas that are about right IMO (Spurs 8 to 1):
http://linesmaker.com/live_odds/nba_champion_odds.htm
They are only a contender if the Lakers get injuries to key players. There will be many disappointed people in here when the dust settles on the playoffs. The spurs will not get past a healthy Laker team in the playoffs. Enjoy the regular season wins.
They don't have the frontline to match up with LA. Its the same frontline as last year. Splitter is a non factor for this year and he is turning out to not be as good as expected. He is not even good enough to break into the rotation and get quality minutes and the spurs are going to need much more than even that.
Lakers are the only contender in the west barring injuries. No one is getting past them if they are healthy again this year. Next year they are bound for a fall unless they make a major player acquisistion. The lakers have one more run in them with the current core.
The east has Miami, Boston and Orlando as the contenders.
You would do well to follow your own advice.
Last time I checked, the Celtics were an Eastern Conference team. Did that change?
You are talking about probably the two best teams in the league, not the two best teams in the conference. We need to get through Dallas and LA.
To be a championship caliber team, it doesn't mean that you will beat whomever the East puts out. It means that you have what it takes to get there. The Celtics were a championship caliber team last year, but they lost. They could have probably won if they had Perkins in that last game. Orlando was a championship caliber team the year prior, but they too lost. Neither team had the ability at that time to beat LA. If we can beat LA and make it to the Finals, we should be able to beat whomever the East lobs at us. That's my point.
You said Blair gets out-muscled by Randolf and Love. My point: So? Who doesn't? We aren't facing either of these in the playoffs or the Finals if we get there. It would be great to be able to crush these guys, but man there are some dudes out there that are just freaks and you just play around them.
The Spurs don't need to be able to dominate all facets of the game in order to win a ring. We have never dominated all facets of the game. We just do what we do better than they do or for a longer time. The difference maker for the Spurs has almost always been composure in chaotic situations, when the opponent becomes agitated and crazy happens. That seems to happen in every playoff series, and invariably it's the Spurs who come out ahead because they remained poised.
If the Spurs make it to the WCF this year, it will be one of a shock to the system of all these armchair pundits who said the Spurs are done. If we win it all? *crickets*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
