RealGM

Originally I thought that a Lakers - Celtics final would be an ideal matchup. In hindsight, i would have much preferred to see the fundamentally sound Spurs play the Celts in these finals.
Do you think the outcome would have been different if they had met in the finals?

I still think the celtics would have won.

They had homecourt.

Bowen/Pierce and KG/Duncan wouldve been interesting

but in the end, if the spurs were having such terrible scoring droughts against the lakers, it would be even worse against the celtics.

Celtics would have easily beat us..

the Spurs problem was health and age..the injuries in the season gave us a bad seed and gave us 2 difficult matchups in Phoenix and NO..the age was the big part in the offensive droughts..injuries+old age is a combination that can't be overcame..

there's no way we would have beaten Boston by that point..maybe in the 1st or 2nd round, but no chance in the finals..

Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

MilanFan wrote:Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

matchups..

I guess Atlanta is better than LA, because they took Boston to 7..

HarlemHeat37 wrote:

MilanFan wrote:Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

matchups..

I guess Atlanta is better than LA, because they took Boston to 7..

i was thinking of the same thing last night!

HarlemHeat37 wrote:

MilanFan wrote:Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

matchups..

I guess Atlanta is better than LA, because they took Boston to 7..

Haha, MOCKED.
You're absolutely right, matchups is the key factor. However, I see the Spurs matching up better with the Celts. Their offensive pace is very similar and both are very strong defensively. Tony Parker would have schooled Rondo and Duncan would have taken Perkins to school.
Horry and Posey cancel eachother out, although it wouldve been sick to see them both hitting big 3's.
I also would have loved to see Scalabrine and Bonner lock eyes and realize that they are potential siblings.
Overall i think that it would have been a very interesting matchup.

Honestly, I'd say Celtics in 5

Rondo has the quickness to stay with Parker
Ray Allen is an improved defender and he and Ginobili would basically balance each other out
Paul Pierce might have had a little trouble with Bowen, but he would still get 20ppg
Duncan>KG but not by a lot
Posey and Finley basically balance each other out

Pierce-KG pick and roll is just as lethal as the Kobe-Pau pick and roll that killed the Spurs...

Celtics in 5.

HarlemHeat37 wrote:

MilanFan wrote:Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

matchups..

I guess Atlanta is better than LA, because they took Boston to 7..

The Spurs aren't a better match up against the Spurs compared to the Lakers.

MilanFan wrote:

HarlemHeat37 wrote:

MilanFan wrote:Lakers beat the Spurs in 5, you think they would of done better against the Celtics?

matchups..

I guess Atlanta is better than LA, because they took Boston to 7..

The Spurs aren't a better match up against the Spurs compared to the Lakers.

I disagree, the Spurs are a better matchup against the Spurs. In fact, they have identical rosters.

I know, I agreed SA wouldn't beat Boston..I'm just saying, just because LA beat SA, it doesn't mean the matchups couldn't possibly favor the Spurs..

whoever said Horry=Posey LOL..come on..Horry might be the worst player in the NBA..

I disagree, the Spurs are a better matchup against the Spurs. In fact, they have identical rosters. [/quote]
Mistype, **** idiot.

HarlemHeat37 wrote:I know, I agreed SA wouldn't beat Boston..I'm just saying, just because LA beat SA, it doesn't mean the matchups couldn't possibly favor the Spurs..

whoever said Horry=Posey LOL..come on..Horry might be the worst player in the NBA..

Haha, i was referring to Big Shot Rob vs Big Game James. Obviously Horry just takes up space on the floor. Id be surprised if he could even run.
Worst in the NBA? I dunno, im sure that award could go to a few other clowns.

MilanFan wrote:I disagree, the Spurs are a better matchup against the Spurs. In fact, they have identical rosters.

Mistype, **** idiot.[/quote]

Grab some kleenex before your tears smear your clown makeup.

I think people are still thinking of the Spurs teams that won a Championships in the past. This years Spurs team would not have fared any better against the Celtics.

Celtics still win in 6, but not as one sided -- Spurs have the pride to go down fighting even against odds. And Bowen and Horry might successfully put a goon hit on an opposing player punking his team, like Rondo.


Main reason is Spurs have slipped is TD is past his prime, making Parker and Gino have to work so much harder. TD was neutralized by the Hornets and Lakers. Against the Celtics, TD would be given the same treatment Gasol got, and respond just as poorly. When age catches up to you, there are some things that can't be helped.

Ginobli/Parker would definitely do better than Lakers counterparts. Those guys back down to no defense.

Like Lakers, Spurs bench gets crushed by the Celtics bench.

kg having the ability to play duncan straight up instead of the pau gasol help fest that the lakers had to install would have led to an even worse offensive showing for the spurs. i don't see anything about the spurs that makes them matchup better with the celtics. the celtics are equipped to exploit the spurs' weaknesses even better than the lakers. posey would do an even better job on manu than sasha. pierce would pick apart the defense in a kobe like way. rondo is an even better man defender than fisher. like i mentioned, kg can actually play duncan straight up instead of the poor man defense that pau showed. spurs wouldn't be able to destroy the celtics on the boards like they did the lakers. celtics in 4.

dacher wrote:
Main reason is Spurs have slipped is TD is past his prime, making Parker and Gino have to work so much harder. TD was neutralized by the Hornets and Lakers. Against the Celtics, TD would be given the same treatment Gasol got, and respond just as poorly. When age catches up to you, there are some things that can't be helped.

Ginobli/Parker would definitely do better than Lakers counterparts. Those guys back down to no defense.

Like Lakers, Spurs bench gets crushed by the Celtics bench.

nice attempt at analysis..

Ginobili was good in about 3-4 games in the entire playoffs..he wouldn't do better than his "Laker counterparts"..he couldn't even beat Radmanovic..

Tim Duncan has NOTHING to do with the Spurs 1-year decline..he's the same player as last year..he's the only reason we even had a chance against LA..he played as well as he could in double coverage AND he shut down Gasol completely..

in case you didn't watch the Lakers series, Duncan was double teamed from the 2nd half of game 1 all the way until game 5, where they started playing single coverage after Duncan was out of rhythm and had to be a volume shooter..when Duncan had single coverage, he **** on Gasol..he **** on Phoenix..the Hornets were the only team he struggled against, no excuses there..Chandler played him well..

LOL @ "main" reason too..did you even watch any of these games?..

It would of depended on Manu being healthy or not. If Manu is healthy that would of been a series for the ages. However, as we showed vs the lakers, a gimpy Manu equals a stuttering Spurs offense. No way in hell would we beat Boston without a 100% Manu.

TD would not have quit like Kobe in Game 6, they would not have lost by 40 pts even if Manu wasn't playing.