Suns vs Spurs 2007 Western Conference Semi-Finals Thread - Page 11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Stranger · 05-17-2007, 12:20 AM

Is Nash tired?

V2M · 05-17-2007, 12:20 AM

88-85 w/ 1.6s

EricaLubarsky · 05-17-2007, 12:20 AM

Timeout with 1.5seconds...classic.

Usually Lurkin · 05-17-2007, 12:20 AM

stupid suns. Drive on Manu in that situation.

V2M · 05-17-2007, 12:21 AM

Game!

u2sarajevo · 05-17-2007, 12:21 AM

I heart Mike Finley. I hope he gets a ring this year....... but it would have been so much sweeter if it was with us.

FINtastic · 05-17-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Timeout with 1.5seconds...classic.

Hey they might be able to devise a play to add seconds back on the clock. You never know.

Usually Lurkin · 05-17-2007, 12:22 AM

what??? you can save timeouts till the end of the game?
someone tell avery!

V2M · 05-17-2007, 12:23 AM

Wow... great game after a sloppy first half!

FINtastic · 05-17-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I heart Mike Finley. I hope he gets a ring this year....... but it would have been so much sweeter if it was with us.

Yeah, now that we are out of the playoffs, I think I am pulling for Finley to get his ring. Although this is made a lot harder knowing that folks like Bowen, Cheap Shot Rob, and all those delusional Spurs fans will also get another championship if this happens.

Henry_VIII · 05-17-2007, 12:27 AM

i think the heavy minutes levied a toll on the Suns. Amare (and his fresh legs) will have a lot riding on his shoulders on friday.

u2sarajevo · 05-17-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Yeah, now that we are out of the playoffs, I think I am pulling for Finley to get his ring. Although this is made a lot harder knowing that folks like Bowen, Cheap Shot Rob, and all those delusional Spurs fans will also get another championship if this happens.

True.... but I don't care really. I was pulling for the Spurs at the start of this series then after the suspensions I decided (earlier today) that I would pull for the Suns because of the injustice (perceived by me of course).... but then when I see findawg playing I forgot about that. It wasn't the Spurs fault that the NBA has a stupid rule.... well one that needs to be amended at least.

I like Horry too. He is a champion. I hate that he was a part of that fracas.

Dtownsfinest · 05-17-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

I heart Mike Finley. I hope he gets a ring this year....... but it would have been so much sweeter if it was with us.

Yea I agree with this. I'd rather him get one then the Nash or the Suns. I just refuse to believe that style of play is championship worthy. That and i'm a huge Finley fan lol.

This game looked damn near identical to the last meeting these two had. Nash played like shit in the 1st half just like last game and then came alive in the 2nd half. He looks worn out by the time closing minutes come in the 4th due to this. Only difference in the game is that instead of the Spurs giving away their lead it was the Suns.

I assumed the Spurs would have a problem with this Suns team. Its just like the Warriors. Yea Amare is not out there but there style of play will keep them in the game until closing minutes because they rely on the jump shot.

Dtownsfinest · 05-17-2007, 12:36 AM

And I have one question. How come D'Antoni and Nash never get T'd up for their antics? Its not as aggressive as Stephen Jackson's or any Warrior for that matter but its like the refs turn the other cheek for those two. Especially Nash.

EricaLubarsky · 05-17-2007, 12:37 AM

its wierd, now that the Spurs are no longer that brick wall that they used to be to Mavs fans I actually cheer for them. I wanted to see a Spurs/Mavs WCF. It also gives me pleasure to see Nash hit the wall against the Spurs with "black jesus" aka Stat and the rest of the fast-paced Suns.

chumdawg · 05-17-2007, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

It also gives me pleasure to see Nash hit the wall against the Spurs...

It kills me to hear this sort of thing from Mavs fans. The bloodlust is hard to stomach.

Keep 'em going, Fin and Nash. Go get a ring, one of you.

EricaLubarsky · 05-17-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It kills me to hear this sort of thing from Mavs fans. The bloodlust is hard to stomach.

Keep 'em going, Fin and Nash. Go get a ring, one of you.

throw up, die or whatever, but its hard to listen to you bitch and moan that Mavs fans aren't good fans because we dont worship every active and/or living coach/player there is.

chumdawg · 05-17-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

throw up, die or whatever, but its hard to listen to you bitch and moan that Mavs fans aren't good fans because we dont worship every active and/or living coach/player there is.

Die? That's a little harsh.

How about you show some respect for the history of this franchise?

Why are you a Mavs fan anyway? You grew up in Arizona, right? Why the Mavs? And why are you so eager to spew venom on every Maverick who moves on?

V2M · 05-17-2007, 01:02 AM

If I have to root for an ex-Mav, I go for Kidd.

Between Fin & Nash though, I like Nash more but I don't want the Suns to win a title until the Mavs win it first. So by default, I guess I'm rooting for Fin in this series, but I hope he loses in the next round!

EricaLubarsky · 05-17-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And why are you so eager to spew venom on every Maverick who moves on?

I could ask the very same thing. Some of us have moved on. Some of us are stuck wishing we had Raef LaFrentz, Don Nelson et al.

Anyway, Mavs fans are mavs fans. While ex-players and coaches are active, fans can believe whatever the hell they want.

chumdawg · 05-17-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I could ask the very same thing. Some of us have moved on. Some of us are stuck wishing we had Raef LaFrentz, Don Nelson et al.

Anyway, Mavs fans are mavs fans. While ex-players and coaches are active, fans can believe whatever the hell they want.

You could ask the very same thing? Come again? You could ask how it is that I am able to spew venom at Mavericks who have moved on? Good grief.

Raef LaFrentz? When did I ever mention him? I thought we were talking about Nash and Finley.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but you don't have to be a Mav fan to hold that right. Everyone holds that right. I want to know how you became a Mavs fan, since they were never your home team.

amuseddaysleeper · 05-17-2007, 01:20 AM

honestly mav fans, do you consider this series "tainted" with amare's suspension even if he did break the rules (though as a spurs fan i am very against his absence in game 5)

just curious on your thoughts

BaselineBum · 05-17-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You could ask the very same thing? Come again? You could ask how it is that I am able to spew venom at Mavericks who have moved on? Good grief.

Raef LaFrentz? When did I ever mention him? I thought we were talking about Nash and Finley.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but you don't have to be a Mav fan to hold that right. Everyone holds that right. I want to know how you became a Mavs fan, since they were never your home team.

Looks like Chum and Erica have gotten into it. Nobody can leave the vicinity of the forum or you will be banned for 1 day.

kenny9 · 05-17-2007, 01:28 AM

while i do agree that the league should change the rule and they will at the end of the season...but the suspensions were correct in its interpretation....and if you look closely at the replay from every angle...amare's eyes are not on nash after hes on the floor..its on horry and for a sec he was about past nash on the floor before the coach held him back....so can anyone justify that he was going to there to stop a confrontation or to confront....unfortunetly for spurs fans the only way u can justify winning this series in front of the whole world is to lose game 6 and win in game 7...but such is life....so it doesnt matter...win and go on...its like us mavs fan saying had terry been there in game 6 against u last year we would have won in 6 and it wouldnt be called a close series...or had stack been there in game 5 in the finals maybe we wud've won...but could've-should've-would've if the spurs win the championship no one will really think of this incident except for suns fans and espn writers biased to their style

LonghornDub · 05-17-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amuseddaysleeper

honestly mav fans, do you consider this series "tainted" with amare's suspension even if he did break the rules (though as a spurs fan i am very against his absence in game 5)

just curious on your thoughts

Personally, I do. The league completely altered the outcome of Game 5 and, likely, the series.

It IS Amare's own fault for what he did, but the rule is ridiculous and has absolutely corrupted the entire WC bracket at this point.

TVI · 05-17-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkat

if it were dirk maybe. but this is tim duncan. he can't choke.

I think you're missing the point. Choking has more to do with failing at your strengths under pressure, not failing at your weaknesses. Duncan has never been an outstanding free throw shooter. It's hard to expect him to suddenly become a clutch free throw shooter just because the game is on the line.

A guy with three rings and three finals MVP awards has earned a pass for a game, or even a series with those credentials. When you've stepped up often enough in the biggest games, your reputation is sealed.

MavsX · 05-17-2007, 07:49 AM

i hate the spurs. suspensions or not. the nba and stern gave the spurs game 5. what a bunch of Sh%t

Henry_VIII · 05-17-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVI

I think you're missing the point. Choking has more to do with failing at your strengths under pressure, not failing at your weaknesses. Duncan has never been an outstanding free throw shooter. It's hard to expect him to suddenly become a clutch free throw shooter just because the game is on the line.

A guy with three rings and three finals MVP awards has earned a pass for a game, or even a series with those credentials. When you've stepped up often enough in the biggest games, your reputation is sealed.

I agree with you overall point, but I will point out that while Duncan was on the floor and the Suns were throwing their double team at him, the Spurs offense went into a slump. When he was on the bench, players were stepping up and making things happen on offense and even defense. I found it very strange that the Spurs seemed to be better off with Duncan on the bench. Choke is not the right word, but I'm not sure what you call it when you're performing better with your best player benched.

mffl03 · 05-17-2007, 09:22 AM

I didn't watch the game...

I was against the suspensions....

I've been in countless, pointless, and brainless arguments on the topics of common sense and morality...

But all things aside, don't the Suns still have 2 All-Stars on their roster?

One of those was almost an MVP...and yet....when people saw that Diaw and Amare are suspended...suddenly their chance of winning becomes VERY bleak?

Now it's the day after, and I see they could have won the game...but, still no one thought that would happen...especially with an MVP like Nash there.....

u2sarajevo · 05-17-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amuseddaysleeper

honestly mav fans, do you consider this series "tainted" with amare's suspension even if he did break the rules (though as a spurs fan i am very against his absence in game 5)

just curious on your thoughts

First off.... you are one of my favorite posters on spurstalk and it's good to see you on here giving the spursfan point of view.

About the question, there is no doubt that the win last night was tainted. But it's not like it was the Spurs doing. It was created by a rule that is in need of revision.... to better define what should be a suspendable offense (aggression with obvious intent to attack, or somesuch). I can buy that Amare "could" attack, but not Diaw. That guy has never had a T.... ever. I believe his intent was to check on his teammates health. And I think it's pretty sorry to be able to be suspended for that type of action, especially in a sport that relies so much on "team".

alexamenos · 05-17-2007, 10:28 AM

my two cents on last night's game.

1. the spurs sucked;
2. the suns w/o Stoudemire or Diaw are a really weak team.

Dtownsfinest · 05-17-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

I agree with you overall point, but I will point out that while Duncan was on the floor and the Suns were throwing their double team at him, the Spurs offense went into a slump. When he was on the bench, players were stepping up and making things happen on offense and even defense. I found it very strange that the Spurs seemed to be better off with Duncan on the bench.

Yea I noticed that too but that had to be a once in a lifetime type thing. When I saw Pop do that i was like WTF is he thinking. They're down by 10 and they take the biggest threat in the game off the court. But that's when the Spurs did make their run. In these past two rounds that's the 1st time i've ever seen them do that. Oberto did help make things easier as well.

Quote:

One of those was almost an MVP...and yet....when people saw that Diaw and Amare are suspended...suddenly their chance of winning becomes VERY bleak?

I don't know. Some people actually thought the Suns would win. I think Barkley said he thought they'd win. Not sure if it was before or after he saw the 1st half of last night's game.

Dtownsfinest · 05-17-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

About the question, there is no doubt that the win last night was tainted. But it's not like it was the Spurs doing. It was created by a rule that is in need of revision.... to better define what should be a suspendable offense (aggression with obvious intent to attack, or somesuch). I can buy that Amare "could" attack, but not Diaw. That guy has never had a T.... ever. I believe his intent was to check on his teammates health. And I think it's pretty sorry to be able to be suspended for that type of action, especially in a sport that relies so much on "team".

See the thing about that though is things are already hectic enough with players in the scuffle. It makes it even more difficult to break it up when you have guys off the bench coming in trying to get involved. Diaw's intentions probably were to help his teammate out. But it just makes the incident more difficult to contain when you have these 6'8 or 6'9 guys all on the court at the same time in a scuffle. I think that's a reason why the rule is in place. Not only for guys off the bench to not get involved but to make it easier on the ref's to break the scuffle up.

12 Tone Melodies · 05-17-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

Personally, I do. The league completely altered the outcome of Game 5 and, likely, the series.

It IS Amare's own fault for what he did, but the rule is ridiculous and has absolutely corrupted the entire WC bracket at this point.

Would you rather have this happening?:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...83/ai_13611966

A brief history of the rule changes that led to the current state, exerpted from
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html
(If you haven't read thru the older rules, they're usually good for a couple of chuckles)

"Leaving the bench" rules
1977-78 season
Fine increased from $100 to $150 for a player not in the game who does not remain in the vicinity of his team's bench during a fight.

1984-85 season
Fine increased from $150 to $500 for a player not in the game who does not remain in the vicinity of his team's bench during a fight.

1993 playoffs
Any player leaving the bench area during a fight will be fined $2,500, up from $500, and that player's team will be fined $5,000 for each of its players who leave the bench area.

1994-95 season
Any player who leaves the bench during a fight is automatically suspended for a minimum of one game and fined a maximum of $20,000; in addition to losing 1/82nd of his salary for each game, he is suspended.

mary · 05-17-2007, 01:44 PM

Missing BOTH free throws at the end of a playoff game is CHOKING, no matter how you spin it.

rabbitproof · 05-17-2007, 01:57 PM

RULE #1 OF CHOKING:

It's only choking if you lose.

DelNegro · 05-17-2007, 01:58 PM

^^^ exactly.

mary · 05-17-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

RULE #1 OF CHOKING:

It's only choking if you lose.

For the entire team, I agree.

You obviously can't say the Spurs choked last night - that took place in game 4.

But individual choke jobs are still possible.

rabbitproof · 05-17-2007, 02:05 PM

This might be semantics but choking implies throwing away an opportunity. Duncan was the victor so I don't think any opportunities were lost.

If we want to say Duncan could've played better and didn't perform in the clutch, fine. Did he choke? No.

EDIT: my fingers don't know no english grammar.

mary · 05-17-2007, 02:09 PM

Do you think its possible for a player to be clutch if his team still loses?