[PHX/SAS] 2008 NBA Playoffs Discussion
- Thread starter Larry89
- Start date
- Status
Arby's Roast Beef
Starter
What's wrong with the Spurs? They play the game straight. Nice comeback too.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Seems somehow wrong for this to be a firt round matchup.
Quick bit of trivia: its been 10 years, an entire decade, since there was an NBA Finals without either Shaq or Duncan on one of the teams.
Quick bit of trivia: its been 10 years, an entire decade, since there was an NBA Finals without either Shaq or Duncan on one of the teams.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
1: There is not one player on their roster that I am a fan of...I have a grudge against every one of them for some reason or another.
2: They're just so F'n good and it makes me want to puke because of reason number one.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Definitely agree. Two championship contenders in the first round? This should be the WCF.
LoungeLizard
Starter
Is Bowen included in this statement? Ginobli's floppery puts even Vlade to shame. I CANT stand them either. At this point if WCF came down to Lakers v Spurs. I'd cheer for Lakers (stone me if you must)
Great game though.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Kurt Thomas got on my nerves today. Since when is he such a flopper?
tradepeja
Starter
If I'm the Suns I come out of this game strangely positive. This is how I look at it.
The Spurs needed all of this to happen to win Game 1 at Home:
1. Shaq out basically the whole first half, did nothing to help his team.
2. Shaq and Amare in foul trouble late, limiting their ability to defend.
3. 40 pts from Duncan. FORTY
4. Two missed game winning possessions by the Suns (I'll chalk up the 4th quarter one to good D, the overtime miss was an easy shot missed by Barbosa).
5. Refs falling for every Denzel Thomas performance.
6. Almost-miraculous shot by senior citizen Finley.
7. Amare fouling out.
8. Miraculous shot by Duncan.
9. Miraculous, well defended lay-up made by Ginobili. (good no TO by pop though)
I still will say Suns in 6 and expect in emphatic win in Game 2.
The Spurs needed all of this to happen to win Game 1 at Home:
1. Shaq out basically the whole first half, did nothing to help his team.
2. Shaq and Amare in foul trouble late, limiting their ability to defend.
3. 40 pts from Duncan. FORTY
4. Two missed game winning possessions by the Suns (I'll chalk up the 4th quarter one to good D, the overtime miss was an easy shot missed by Barbosa).
5. Refs falling for every Denzel Thomas performance.
6. Almost-miraculous shot by senior citizen Finley.
7. Amare fouling out.
8. Miraculous shot by Duncan.
9. Miraculous, well defended lay-up made by Ginobili. (good no TO by pop though)
I still will say Suns in 6 and expect in emphatic win in Game 2.
Kingzrool
Starter
You can say that the Suns should have won this game. But I would correct to say that Spurs absolutely under any and all circumstances needed to win the first game on their home floor. The Suns were in a position to win this game. The Spurs had to pull out all the stops including Duncans first three of the season and barely avoiding triple OT to pull out the win. There was luck involved and luck never lasts a whole 7 game series.
The Suns executed a beautiful game and were unable to close out the Spurs when they had the chance. They learned alot from the first game, good thing there are potentially 6 more games.
It would have been sweet to pull off the first game, but even I did not expect that, and I am expecting the Suns to take the finals. They pushed the Spurs harder than I would have expected as well. I still believe that the Suns will take this series in 6.
The Suns executed a beautiful game and were unable to close out the Spurs when they had the chance. They learned alot from the first game, good thing there are potentially 6 more games.
It would have been sweet to pull off the first game, but even I did not expect that, and I am expecting the Suns to take the finals. They pushed the Spurs harder than I would have expected as well. I still believe that the Suns will take this series in 6.
Andriod_KiNg
Starter
what kind of sorry *** soft big man takes a 3 pointer in the game .
/Brick.
/Brick.
Andriod_KiNg
Starter
really though , one of the best games i have seen couple of years, felt bad for the Suns though, they threw everything at the Spurs but they kept fighting back.
Did Jalen Rose just compare Duncan's performance tonight to child abuse?
RKid
Bench
The Phoenix Suns remind me a lot of the Kings when they were good. Both have a flashy style of play and have the same components player wise. They also have that aura about them that eventhough they are great in the regular season, one way or the other they are going to crap out in the playoffs. Its like Deja Vu.
Phoenix is more talented than this San Antonio team, and San Antonio needed a miracle three to win game one, but remember in 02 the Kings were overall the more talented team and LA needed a miracle three to win game four. It doesnt matter how you win the game or how lucky you needed to be, what matters is that you won.
Nash = Bibby
Stoudamire = Webber
Barbosa = Bobby
Christie = Raja
Phoenix is more talented than this San Antonio team, and San Antonio needed a miracle three to win game one, but remember in 02 the Kings were overall the more talented team and LA needed a miracle three to win game four. It doesnt matter how you win the game or how lucky you needed to be, what matters is that you won.
Nash = Bibby
Stoudamire = Webber
Barbosa = Bobby
Christie = Raja
Oh gee, really? I'd forgotten all about that.
Good grief, Laker fan. Are you serious? I strongly advise you NOT to push your luck.
Gargamel
Starter
That final decision to forgo the timeout and take it right to the rim was both a shining example of the the Suns' fatal flaw and of the Spurs' knowledge of how to exploit it.
D'Antoni also demonstrated his coaching ability by leaving Shaq on the bench on that final sequence even though it was under the 2-min mark. If I know Shaquille Rashaun, he wasn't too pleased at seeing Manu getting as much resistance in the paint at the 58th minute as he would have in the 1st minute.
Kingzrool
Starter
No mention of them not fouling either of the two times the Spurs needed three to tie? That just killed me.
I just don't understand why no one in the NBA employs this strategy. Maybe I miss it when it happens, but I never see teams foul early when the other team needs three points, the way the Suns should have before Duncan shot the three.
Perfect example: The 2004 NBA Finals, Pistons @ Lakers, Game 2. The Lakers were down three with just a matter of seconds left. They actually wound up having to inbound to Shaq, which is the last thing they wanted to do. I'm screaming at the TV "FOUL HIM! FOUL HIS A**!!!", but the Pistons don't. They allow the ball to get back in the hands of the most clutch player in the NBA, who nails the three to send the game into overtime.
I guess you don't want to run the risk of them making the first, getting the offensive rebound and hitting a three, then you're down one. But that's a lot less likely to happen than the other team hitting a three straight up.
Gargamel
Starter
I think coaches just wanna let the chips fall where they may. They don't want to make a call and then something goes wrong which will be blamed on them forever.
If pressed, I could come up w/ at least 4 examples of games lost because of the primary team not securing the 2nd miss (whether the FT was missed intentionally or accidentally). I think that's the thought that terrifies coaches. They'll think "what if?" forever.
uolj
Starter
What has a greater chance of succeeding? A highly contested three-pointer (since you are only defending the three in that spot) or getting a rebound and/or stopping a putback?
With one second left perhaps the latter is better, but with three or four seconds left I'm not so sure. It's not just about coaches not wanting to look bad. I'm guessing some who don't foul there really think that straight defense is better, and others don't want to be guinea pigs to test the theory.
With one second left perhaps the latter is better, but with three or four seconds left I'm not so sure. It's not just about coaches not wanting to look bad. I'm guessing some who don't foul there really think that straight defense is better, and others don't want to be guinea pigs to test the theory.
You watched the Lakers/Pistons game in '04. If the Lakers had used that Game 2 win to propel them to three more wins in a row, it would be directly related to the decision NOT to foul. I firmly believe that decision lost them that game, and against a team like the Lakers, it could have easily lost them the series.
I don't think not securing the 2nd free throw miss could be blamed on the coach, either. You put your three best rebounders/shot blockers on the free throw lane, and you tell them to box out like their life depended on it, don't foul on the rebound, and make sure you cover the shooter. It's not that big of a deal. If your players don't do their job, or if there's a miraculous series of events (Game 4, 2002 WCF) when there's nothing that you could have done differently, that's not the coach's fault, I don't think.
And if you can think of four instances where the 2nd miss wasn't rebounded by the defense and cost the game, I can think of 40 instances where the last second three pointer cost the game.
I mean, letting the chips fall where they may is not a good way to coach. You think the Lakers are paying Phil Jackson $10 million a year to let whatever's going to happen, happen? He's there to make those tough decisions and live with the consequences, but I don't think that type of decision, even if it costs your team the game or the series, would cost you your job. Not by itself.
Gargamel
Starter
I'd be willing to bet that Larry Brown didn't want to foul because Kobe could feasibly get a 4-pt play and because Shaq could feasibly get a missed FT w/o inside position. All this stuff is conditional. Another thing in play is that if you don't foul soon enough, you now get 3 FTs as long as the guy is hit in the act.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
