But anyway, this is not 2004. The Thunder (minus Perk and Fisher) have a combined zero championships, zero finals appearances.

Those Lakers had experienced go-to players if they needed an easy shot in crunch time (Shaq, Kobe, Malone). They could get easy shots all game long if they wanted.

The Thunder haven't shown that they can get easy shots when they need them. Hell, even Durant's game winners and clutch shots this postseason have been 9.9 and 10.0s on degree of difficulty. The Thunder take difficult shots and long jumpers. Those Lakers took high percentage shots most the game.

Huge difference.

[This message has been edited by aggie_2001_2005 (edited 5/28/2012 6:55p).]

quote:

---

quote:its 9 in a row now

the regular season is not measurable as it is a different contest


Um, no

---

as far as I know the spurs have won one in a row

and 9 overall-

5 more wins is all they need

... Or 7 more wins?

I think the Thunder take one game and maybe two but I also think a sweep isn't out of the question. This doesn't feel like the '04 Lakers, that team was loaded with Vets that had a gazillion playoff games and HoF'ers trying for a ring. Anything can happen but I just don't see the Thunder matching up much better with the Spurs.

In the end you will have the Spurs consistently taking high percentage shots and the Thunder taking low. The odds are just too strong to overcome that. The Spurs also seem to be in a really strong place mentally, all they are talking about is their mistakes and how they can play better. It's a very professional and even keeled attitude that is going to be hard to break. Mainly though there just isn't a match up that OKC has that really gives SA problems compared to those '04 Lakers (Malone and Shaq made life hard on Duncan) or even the '06 Mavs (Harris and Dirk really frustrated the Spurs). The Thunder have great talent but they don't have anyone the Spurs can't answer with but OKC clearly has problems with several Spurs' matchups.

My Bad. I think I am getting excited

After the next three wins, the following 4 will feel like a walk in the park.

As long as Westbrook holds the ball and takes stupid shot, the Spurs will win the series. So basically Westbrook has to totally change his playing style, ain't gonna happen.

quote:

---

After the Spurs won the first two games, many experts thought the series was over. After all, there was no way the Spurs would lose four of the next five to the Lakers, at least not the way they were playing at the time.

---

The biggest difference between 2012 and 2004 is the maturation of Parker. The Spurs lost that series in 2004 primarily because the Lakers crowded the paint and Parker had nowhere to go. He is a much smarter player and a much better shooter now, and the same defense would result in a flurry of 18-footers from Parker.
I'll never forget how well the Spurs played in those first 2 games, just to go completely cold offensively in games 3 and 4.

And Malone spent the entire series knocking Tony on his ass and Tony didn't respond well. He averaged 12.5ppg in games 3-6 while scoring 20 and 30 in games 1 and 2. Some really big differences between 21 year old Tony and 30 year old Tony.

Good posts Mass and GS

quote:

---

The Spurs were so close to winning 5 straight. Damn Fisher and Manu's foul.

---

Even if SA had beaten LA in 2004, winning a trophy wasn't guaranteed. Detroit had a really good team that year.

No one was beating Detroit in 04.

I think spurs vs Detroit would have been a coin flip in 04 like it was in 05

Color me pleasantly surprised. Awesome serve-hold by SA.

Whole bunch of wrong in this thread

What a roll yo

We had a better overall team in '05 w/ Barry and Nazr. And that was the highest level of basketball Manu has ever played. And it still took seven games with the game being tied in the 4th.

It ends tonight.

My Rockets still have sole possession of the second longest winning streak in NBA history. Damn impressive streak though, Spurs fans. I was worried y'all would sweep this series and pass us

misread

doh

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/31/2012 10:52p).]

Better question: When will their losing streak end?

I say November.

quote:

---

But anyway, this is not 2004. The Thunder (minus Perk and Fisher) have a combined zero championships, zero finals appearances.

Those Lakers had experienced go-to players if they needed an easy shot in crunch time (Shaq, Kobe, Malone). They could get easy shots all game long if they wanted.

The Thunder haven't shown that they can get easy shots when they need them. Hell, even Durant's game winners and clutch shots this postseason have been 9.9 and 10.0s on degree of difficulty. The Thunder take difficult shots and long jumpers. Those Lakers took high percentage shots most the game.

Huge difference.

---

Here for another helping of crow.

quote:

---

I think the Thunder take one game and maybe two but I also think a sweep isn't out of the question. This doesn't feel like the '04 Lakers, that team was loaded with Vets that had a gazillion playoff games and HoF'ers trying for a ring. Anything can happen but I just don't see the Thunder matching up much better with the Spurs.

In the end you will have the Spurs consistently taking high percentage shots and the Thunder taking low. The odds are just too strong to overcome that. The Spurs also seem to be in a really strong place mentally, all they are talking about is their mistakes and how they can play better. It's a very professional and even keeled attitude that is going to be hard to break. Mainly though there just isn't a match up that OKC has that really gives SA problems compared to those '04 Lakers (Malone and Shaq made life hard on Duncan) or even the '06 Mavs (Harris and Dirk really frustrated the Spurs). The Thunder have great talent but they don't have anyone the Spurs can't answer with but OKC clearly has problems with several Spurs' matchups.

---

Dumb **** spurs fans say