PDA

View Full Version : The Official Congrats Spurs on your Championship thread


Drbio
06-23-2005, 10:53 PM
Congrats Spurs!

Once we were eliminated I was a Spurs fan by default. Texas above all else.


Well done and congrats on a great season. i/expressions/thumbsup.gif

Thespiralgoeson
06-23-2005, 11:04 PM
Is it wrong to hate the Spurs? I feel guilty for hating them, because they're a Texas team, but I just can't find it in my heart to be happy they won. I guess I hate them because the media loves them. When this series started, I told myself I'd root for San Antonio, simply because I don't like Detroit, yet I found myself hoping the ball would go in every time Rasheed took a shot. Oh well, in hindsight, I guess I have to be glad the Spurs won because they're a Texas team, and I hate Larry Brown. Congrats Spurs... I guess... But the Mavs WILL beat you one day, I swear it!

madape
06-23-2005, 11:05 PM
San Antonio sucks, but they are the champs. Congrats.

Hitman
06-23-2005, 11:13 PM
I hope the Mavs were watching this series -- to see what it takes to win the championship.

I hope Dirk wasn't at Wimbledon bonding with Nash.

Thespiralgoeson
06-23-2005, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by: Hitman
I hope the Mavs were watching this series -- to see what it takes to win the championship.


Which is what exactly? Better defense? You didn't specify but I assume that's what you're aiming at. I think our biggest weakness this year was chemistry and consistency, as well as lack of all-star calibur players behind Dirk. I thought our defense was good enough to win, although, we surely could stand to improve.

Hitman
06-23-2005, 11:21 PM
If our defense was good enough to win.....

we would have won.

DubOverdose
06-23-2005, 11:22 PM
Congrats, they were my second team to win it all next to the Mavs. I really didn't want Detroit to win it this year.

Bayliss
06-23-2005, 11:26 PM
I hope the Mavs were watching this series -- to see what it takes to win the championship.

Dirk definitely saw it from Duncan. Dirk saw that in order to win a championship, you need a great sidekick... preferably two just in case one doesn't show up **cough** Parker **cough**..... you also need a great daggeresque player **cough** Horry **cough**

And when it's all said and done and 2 of those players carry your butt in 4 of the wins.... you get to receive the MVP trophy... not the other two who actually showed up in the last 5 minutes of a game.

Yeah the Spurs showed the Mavs a lot.

Thespiralgoeson
06-23-2005, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by: Hitman
If our defense was good enough to win.....

we would have won.

A valid point of view, but very debateable. You could say the exact same thing about our point guard play, Dirk's post game, consistency, chemistry etc....

Hitman
06-23-2005, 11:51 PM
No, it is not debateable Spiral.

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.

Parker's point guard play was not good enough, Duncan missed too many in the post, SA was inconsistent, and there were times the chemistry was non existent.

But.....

Their

Defense

Was Good Enough

and...

they won.

That is how it ALWAYS IS.

Hitman
06-23-2005, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by: Bayliss

I hope the Mavs were watching this series -- to see what it takes to win the championship.

Dirk definitely saw it from Duncan. Dirk saw that in order to win a championship, you need a great sidekick... preferably two just in case one doesn't show up **cough** Parker **cough**..... you also need a great daggeresque player **cough** Horry **cough**

And when it's all said and done and 2 of those players carry your butt in 4 of the wins.... you get to receive the MVP trophy... not the other two who actually showed up in the last 5 minutes of a game.

Yeah the Spurs showed the Mavs a lot.

No Bayliss, you are right. The Spurs showed the Mavs nothing. The Mavs should take nothing from the team that just won its third championship in 7 years. Be oblivious to what works!!!

Cough Cough Cough!!!!!!!!!!!

chumdawg
06-23-2005, 11:57 PM
Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.Would you mind just reopening the debate for one more question?

If I understand your line of reasoning correctly, it also means that Detroit's defense was not good enough to win a championship with. Correct?

Would you please explain to me the difference in Detroit's defense this year and Detroit's defense last year?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discovering the differences, which were not apparent to my untrained eye.

chumdawg
06-23-2005, 11:59 PM
Geez, I posted in this thread and forgot to address the main topic at hand. San Antonio can SUCK IT. Manu Ginobli can suck it. Tony Parker can--and for the most part, did--suck it.

I'm happy for Pop, I'm happy for Horry, I'm happy for Bruce Bowen. But the rest of those dudes can suck it.

TheBlameGame
06-24-2005, 12:02 AM
How did Tim Duncan win MVP honors? Sorry but that is a joke. Without Ginobli this series would have been over in 5 games.

I am glad the Spurs knocked off the one hit wonder Detroit Pistons (we all know they got lucky beating a in-fighting LA team last season and only got past Miami because they hurt Dwayne Wade) but I don't get Duncan being MVP.

The NBA must be going the way the MLB did last year. They gave Manny MVP rumor has it because they needed a name when Derek Lowe or Keith Foulke should have really won the honor.

mary
06-24-2005, 12:02 AM
Yeah...I was rooting for the Pistons myself. I think the Spurs are mostly good guys and all, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But oh well, the best team won - congrats to them i guess.

Thespiralgoeson
06-24-2005, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by: Hitman
No, it is not debateable Spiral.

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.

Parker's point guard play was not good enough, Duncan missed too many in the post, SA was inconsistent, and there were times the chemistry was non existent.

But.....

Their

Defense

Was Good Enough

and...

they won.

That is how it ALWAYS IS.

You're an asshole.

Hitman
06-24-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by: chumdawg

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.Would you mind just reopening the debate for one more question?

If I understand your line of reasoning correctly, it also means that Detroit's defense was not good enough to win a championship with. Correct?

Would you please explain to me the difference in Detroit's defense this year and Detroit's defense last year?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discovering the differences, which were not apparent to my untrained eye.

Chum,

Let me break it down for you in business terms.

Lets say you and I opened up competing lemonade stands. I am on one side of the street, and you are on the other.

We both make great lemonade.

We both make money.

We both do an awesome job of selling our lemonade.

But

I make more more money than you.

Then....

the bottom line is...

You didn't sell well enough.

How do I know?

Because I won --

and

You --

Didn't.

Hitman
06-24-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by: Thespiralgoeson

Originally posted by: Hitman
No, it is not debateable Spiral.

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.

Parker's point guard play was not good enough, Duncan missed too many in the post, SA was inconsistent, and there were times the chemistry was non existent.

But.....

Their

Defense

Was Good Enough

and...

they won.

That is how it ALWAYS IS.

You're an asshole.



Great Post.

Thespiralgoeson
06-24-2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by: Hitman

Originally posted by: chumdawg

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.Would you mind just reopening the debate for one more question?

If I understand your line of reasoning correctly, it also means that Detroit's defense was not good enough to win a championship with. Correct?

Would you please explain to me the difference in Detroit's defense this year and Detroit's defense last year?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discovering the differences, which were not apparent to my untrained eye.

Chum,

Let me break it down for you in business terms.

Lets say you and I opened up competing lemonade stands. I am on one side of the street, and you are on the other.

We both make great lemonade.

We both make money.

We both do an awesome job of selling our lemonade.

But

I make more more money than you.

Then....

the bottom line is...

You didn't sell well enough.

How do I know?

Because I won --

and

You --

Didn't.

I reiterate .

kg_veteran
06-24-2005, 12:23 AM
Spiral - What's up with calling somebody an asshole? Knock it off.

Thespiralgoeson
06-24-2005, 12:27 AM
I called him an asshole, because I was polite to him initially, and he responded rudely to me, and Chumdawg as well. If someone condescends to me, I don't hesitate to call that person an asshole.

kg_veteran
06-24-2005, 12:47 AM
I wasn't really asking for an explanation. I was telling you not to do it again.

Thespiralgoeson
06-24-2005, 01:03 AM
Not sure what to say to that one. I could say something like "you're not my mother," but I suppose that would be unwise. I don't mean to pick fights, and if you have a problem with people cussing here, then I'll gladly stop. I understand that you're a moderator, and I'm a piss-ant with less than 1,000 posts, so that's why I'm being polite and offered an explanation. But please please don't talk to or treat me like I'm an idiot. That's all I ask. If it actually upset you, then I'm sorry for using that word, but I'm not sorry for retaliating to a rude reply.


orginally posted by:kg_veteran

I wasn't really asking for an explanation. I was telling you not to do it again.

I respect you, but please don't talk to me like that. If you ask me not to cuss, or name-call, then I won't. But please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, like I'm a child, or that you're my boss.

bernardos70
06-24-2005, 01:09 AM
OT: The name "Vincent Vega" comes to mind.

Spurs are ok. They are ok.

Drbio
06-24-2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by: Hitman
If our defense was good enough to win.....

we would have won.

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. i/expressions/anim_roller.gif

chumdawg
06-24-2005, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by: bernardos70
OT: The name "Vincent Vega" comes to mind.

Spurs are ok. They are ok.Our man in Amsterdam? I hate to say it--I really, really do...it may have something to do with the Bud Light--but I'm not following...

Thespiralgoeson
06-24-2005, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by: chumdawg

Originally posted by: bernardos70
OT: The name "Vincent Vega" comes to mind.

Spurs are ok. They are ok.Our man in Amsterdam? I hate to say it--I really, really do...it may have something to do with the Bud Light--but I'm not following...

Didn't quite catch that one either. I was gonna pretend I got it and respond with something like "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead" but it just didn't feel right.

chumdawg
06-24-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by: Hitman

Originally posted by: chumdawg

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.Would you mind just reopening the debate for one more question?

If I understand your line of reasoning correctly, it also means that Detroit's defense was not good enough to win a championship with. Correct?

Would you please explain to me the difference in Detroit's defense this year and Detroit's defense last year?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discovering the differences, which were not apparent to my untrained eye.

Chum,

Let me break it down for you in business terms.

Lets say you and I opened up competing lemonade stands. I am on one side of the street, and you are on the other.

We both make great lemonade.

We both make money.

We both do an awesome job of selling our lemonade.

But

I make more more money than you.

Then....

the bottom line is...

You didn't sell well enough.

How do I know?

Because I won --

and

You --

Didn't.Okay...

Yesterday I sold more than the guy across the street.

I won!

Today I sold less than the guy across the street.

I lost!

Yet, I sold the same way both times.

But two days ago, I had a better defense than the guy across the street. Today my defense was not as good.

Am I following correctly?

If so, you have introduced a degree of relativism into this "debate."

How can you speak in absolutes when clearly relativism determines the outcome?

In other words, my defense isn't what it is. It is "what it is" in relation to the defense it competes against.

Further, if the lemonade stand across the street one-ups my defense, it does so by what means?

By what means?

Consider these questions, and consider them carefully, and you may arrive at a deeper understanding....

Hitman
06-24-2005, 06:40 AM
You just don't get it. You can't 'sell the same way both times" when the variables change.

Different day, different customers, different set of circumstances.

You don't do the same thing that you did yesterday. You need to adapt, you need to change, you need to be flexible.

You need to analyze yesterday and say, "Hey, I sold more than the guy across the street yesterday, but what can I do tomorrow to sell more BY A GREATER MARGIN?"

Every day is a new day with new challenges. There is no such thing as 'selling the same way both times.'

Usually Lurkin
06-24-2005, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by: Hitman
No, it is not debateable Spiral.

Our defense was not good enough to win, because we didn't win.

Debate. Over.

Parker's point guard play was not good enough, Duncan missed too many in the post, SA was inconsistent, and there were times the chemistry was non existent.

But.....

I don't understand. Is this sarcasm? By your argument, Parker's play was good enough to win, Duncan didn't miss too many in the post to win, etc. Because they won. San Antonio did nothing that wasn't good enough to win - because they won. And Detroit didn't do anything good enough to win - because they didn't win.

Usually Lurkin
06-24-2005, 07:21 AM
I'm so glad San Antonio won. Except for Bruce Bowen, I like that team. They play well as a team. They aren't led by any egomaniacs, they are fundamental. They showed this year that they can win running with the Suns, and grinding it out with the Pistons. I'd rather watch the Mavs for a few more games, but the Spurs definitely deserve it.

alby
06-24-2005, 11:55 AM
pop should win mvp =x

chumdawg
06-24-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by: Hitman
You just don't get it. You can't 'sell the same way both times" when the variables change.

Different day, different customers, different set of circumstances.

You don't do the same thing that you did yesterday. You need to adapt, you need to change, you need to be flexible.

You need to analyze yesterday and say, "Hey, I sold more than the guy across the street yesterday, but what can I do tomorrow to sell more BY A GREATER MARGIN?"

Every day is a new day with new challenges. There is no such thing as 'selling the same way both times.'Interesting. Earlier in the thread you talked about a winning formula, and said "That is how it ALWAYS IS." Before you were telling me that the winning recipe was set in stone, and now you are telling me that it changes day by day.

If you can pick one side or the other, let me know.

poohrichardson
06-25-2005, 12:32 AM
The Pistons lost because their offense wasn't good enough. Their defense was good enough to win, but they only shot well in games 3 and 4 of the series.. other than that, their shooters missed -- a lot.

Thespiralgoeson
06-25-2005, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by: poohrichardson
The Pistons lost because their offense wasn't good enough. Their defense was good enough to win, but they only shot well in games 3 and 4 of the series.. other than that, their shooters missed -- a lot.

That's 100% true. Last year, the reason they beat the Lakers was because Billups and Hamilton dominated the game. That didn't happen this time around, so they lost.

alby
06-25-2005, 01:08 AM
if their defense was good enough, they would have won.

poohrichardson
06-25-2005, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by: alby
if their defense was good enough, they would have won.

No defense in the league is good enough for an offense as inconsistent as the Pistons'.

You can't honestly call the Pistons, who are the best defensive team in the league, not "good enough" on defense. That's just you taking phraseology too seriously.

alby
06-25-2005, 01:15 AM
yeah it was a joke.

i was quoting 'hitman'

Misfit Mav
06-25-2005, 06:20 AM
Congrats to the Spurs-- they're a great team. Has any team in such a small market ever had as much success as San Antonio? I don't think so.

TVI
06-25-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
They showed this year that they can win running with the Suns, and grinding it out with the Pistons. I'd rather watch the Mavs for a few more games, but the Spurs definitely deserve it.The Spurs are the only team in the league who really can play any style. They do focus on defense, but showed that they have the capability to get out and run (as you pointed out). That flexibility is ultimately what I think saw them through. I think Detroit was a hell of a challenge because they're so solid defensively that they make it tough for any team that plays them. Fortunately, the Spurs found just enough cracks in their armour to pull away at the end of game seven.

Man, that was an incredible game. I was so pround of those guys. This one is really, really special. No offense to New York or New Jersy, but IMHO, this was the first time they played a team in the NBA finals that was truly their equal. That's not their fault (obviously they have no control who comes out of the East) but this time they rose to a huge, huge challenge.

Wow, what a season! I'm a happy guy right now!
i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

TVI
06-25-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: Bayliss

I hope the Mavs were watching this series -- to see what it takes to win the championship.preferably two just in case one doesn't show up **cough** Parker **cough**..... you also need a great daggeresque player **cough** Horry **cough**I agree that Parker has a lot of room for improvement, but he did a lot for the Spurs in these playoffs. In the Finals, he had a really tough assignment trying to guard Billups. He gives up a lot of height and strentgh to Chauncy, but I still thought he did as good a job as he could do defending him. He did a much much better job of containing him than the Lakers did. I also cut him some slack because of his age. At 23, he's got 3-4 years before he's really in his prime.

Parker's biggest weakness if his inconsistent outside shooting. He's relied on his speed and quickness his whole career to get to the basket or get his defender to play off of him so he has space to get his shot off. He's finding that to be more difficult against some of the better defenders in the NBA. I think he can really take his game to a whole new level if he spends the summer shooting 1500 jump shots a day, and works on getting a quicker release. He must become consistent, and deadly from 12-17 feet. With his speed, he can ge that shot anytime he wants. If he can hit it consistently (ala Bibby) he could be one of the best in the game.