Nope, I said in my opinion they have for overall talent not for seeding. Predicted the 3 seed in the same post due to Pop and Kawhi. Read again.

Think y'all are bored or reading a little too into what he said. Either way I think our season will go as far as Aldridge's play (and maybe Murray's development) lets it. Will we beat GSW? Probably not, but theres so many things that can happen between now and April (whether its buy outs, trades, injuries, etc.) that it's incredibly premature to write us off just yet.

Quad tendon ruptures usually happen in people that are either older or do steroids (which is why most "athletes" that have had it are pro wrestlers.) Otherwise the injury comes from a weakened tendon due to inflammation, tendinitis, or other small tears in the tendon or muscle.

If only Parker had a history of quad problems.

Oh wait... Parker missed a game earlier this season b/c of an injury to his quad.

GatorAg03 said:

---

I sprained my ankle bad one year playing 5A ball. Played on it the rest if the year and it never felt right as it didn't have time to heal. I tweaked it here and there and finally had to miss some time after a bad sprain late in the season. Doctor said it just wore down and never healed.as I kept playing on it. I just needed rest. I guess I didn't get the all-word sports memo on classifications.

And to the other poster. A torn quad tendon or Achilles is much more of a freak injury than an ankle sprain.

---

I've done the exact same thing (ten years later my ankle still aches), but the initial injury on an ankle strain is generally bad luck. If you don't get to rest after that you can chalk reaggravations up to lack of recovery time, but if the initial sprain happens in the second round you're pretty much SOL regardless of who else is on the team.

Those ruptures and tears, on the other hand, are usually either from a lack of conditioning/ preparation or overexertion, either of which can result in a catastrophic failure while doing something that shouldn't have been a problem. TP was going up for a floater like he has done ten thousand times before. I've also torn a muscle, and it was because I didn't stretch properly before performing an exercise at a weight I had done many times.

GatorAg03 said:

---

And to the other poster. A torn quad tendon or Achilles is much more of a freak injury than an ankle sprain.

---

Yeah, that's why it generally happens to guys who are older and have tons of miles on their body (Kobe, Tony, Rudy Gay, etc.) Rupture and tear injuries are most certainly highly correlated to fatigue and overuse. As a muscle/ tendon are weakened without proper recovery, they become increasingly likely to tear. This is accepted universally in sports medicine and isn't really worth any continued debate- we can just agree to disagree.

In other news, did anyone catch the summer league game last night? Box score makes it seem like Murray continued his awful play (more TO than assists and crap FG%)

Guitarsoup said:

---

Quote:

---

To me (I'll admit just a casual fan analysis), the Spurs look potentially weaker than they were last season.

---

How? They've kept the team together and have added a legit scoring threat? Gotta assume there will be some progress with younger guys (Anderson/Simmons/Murray) and after what we have seen from KLaw each year in his career, I would assume that we see growth from him as well.

But somehow they are weaker than last year? There is a lot to say about continuity and chemistry. That's why GSW is paying so much to keep Livingston and Iggy around.

---

As I said just a casual NBA fan who only really watched the Spurs during the playoff last year (not regular season).

Probably I have this reaction of thinking they will be a weaker next season because, As a casual fan when I think of Spurs sustained success the past several years, I thought think mostly of guys like Duncan, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, and Pop.

Now Duncan is gone. Parker will be 36 next June and that apparently was a rough injury for him to recover from. Manu is turning 40. New era is here definitely.

When I watched them in the 2017 playoffs, I saw a Tony Parker who was still capable of being a real difference maker. Looked it up and yeah he was averaging 16 ppg in playoffs until he got hurt. That was really nice production and playmaking out of him. Manu had some good moments too. The old guard were still being difference makers.

In terms of guys replacing that Duncan/Manu/Parker core, it seems to be guys like LMA, Murray, Bertrans, Simmons... LMA....something just looked 'off' about him when that Warriors series happened. And we know the Spurs definitely shopped him around this offseason trying to see if they could get a good trade offer, but apparently no one bit. I left that Warriors series thinking less of Aldridge (including his heart and 'fight') than I had going in.

Murray, 20 year old kid who seems really inconsistent and more 'potential' than actual production right now. He didn't look ready at all to me to be a starting NBA PG. I am not sure what Spurs fans see to have a lot confidence in him panning out?

Of the really young Spurs guys, I liked that Bertrans kid by far the most. Really smooth looking shot and was surprised when announcers said he was missing some digits on his shooting hand. Much more impressed with Bertrans than that Murray kid.

Simmons really impressed me when I watched him in playoffs. Seemed to play with a lot of confidence and heart (the opposite of Aldridge in that Warriors series). He is going to be 28 years old though next season and had to scrap and claw his way out of D-league to get this far, so it is understandable that he is trying to cash in as much as possible right now. I was actually kind of skeptical the Spurs keep him because I figured some nutty team (like the Knicks) would overpay. But not happened yet.

Quote:

---

As I said just a casual NBA fan who only really watched the Spurs during the playoff last year (not regular season).

Probably I have this reaction of thinking they will be a weaker next season because, As a casual fan when I think of Spurs sustained success the past several years, I thought think mostly of guys like Duncan, Manu, Parker, Kawhi, and Pop.

---

The Spurs won 61 games without Duncan and a hobbled Parker who missed a quarter of the season and had his worst output since his rookie season.

Quote:

---

Simmons really impressed me when I watched him in playoffs. Seemed to play with a lot of confidence and heart (the opposite of Aldridge in that Warriors series). He is going to be 28 years old though next season and had to scrap and claw his way out of D-league to get this far, so it is understandable that he is trying to cash in as much as possible right now. I was actually kind of skeptical the Spurs keep him because I figured some nutty team (like the Knicks) would overpay. But not happened yet.

---

Simmons played great in the playoffs. But he looked not so great in the regular season. He was inconsistent, turnover prone, and didn't get consistent rotation runs (this is why he hasn't been offered a big contract). In fact, he didn't really crack the rotation consistently until the Houston series.

It's a mistake to make all of these conclusions after only watching a handful of games. And always referring to yourself as a 'casual fan' doesn't help your cause.

The point of my post is that for all this depth the Spurs have, supposedly the most in the NBA, they folded like a cheap tent in Game 1 as soon as Kawhi went down.

Had that superior depth allowed them to win that game, there is a legit shot that Kawhi gets to rest a couple games and makes it back for game 4 or 5 with the Spurs still having a small shot. Once they folded without Kawhi and were down 0-3 there was no point in pushing it. That game was the final nail where it became 100% clear that LMA is not and will never be the second option on a championship team.

That type game is where I think that second elite player/scorer is really needed and why I think it was necessary to find that type of player if we really want to close the gap with GSW. If Kawhi gets a small tweak or has to miss a game, is just having an off night, or even needs some bench rest then the Spurs will still have a shot. As it stands now, we need Kawhi to be Michael Jordan every night to have a chance against the warriors and even that might not be enough. Yes you can overcome a lack of elite talent behind Kawhi with a ball movement offense but without solid PG play that's a tall ask, which is why that was the most logical position to upgrade.

Again, Spurs will be a good team again, nobody is saying they aren't, but did they really get better this off-season? I'm not certain they did. Now if Gay or TP returns to all star form, Simmons plays all year like he did in the playoffs, Murray figures it out, then things could come together nicely, but I don't think even the Spurs front office expects that this year. I think this is a transition year with a good, competitive squad but next year's moves will be when we really try to close the gap with LMA and TP salaries off the books. This is not a bad position to be in by any means as we will still be a very good team.

Not just that game but the entire season and playoff run? Absolutely. TP was a top 3 player during the playoffs. Will he come back even close to that level? LMA folded badly and can't be counted on. He is disgruntled to the point that the Spurs we're trying to move him for a draft pick. He is a 3rd or 4th options best on a championship team, so who is the #2 and maybe #3 players that can be counted on?

Simmons is the bright spot and showed he can be very good but can he keep that level of play going forward as he barely made an impact in regular season.

I don't see how you don't factor in all that info, just because the Spurs were up big when Kawhi re-sprained an ankle.

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a mistake to make all of these conclusions after only watching a handful of games. And always referring to yourself as a 'casual fan' doesn't help your cause.

---

---

Well, yeah, I am being honest in how much I watched and when I watched. I know that is unusual for a message board poster to admit such details and that he is probably clueless before spouting off an opinion, but I'll admit that I'm probably clueless!

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Quote:

---

Simmons played great in the playoffs. But he looked not so great in the regular season. He was inconsistent, turnover prone, and didn't get consistent rotation runs (this is why he hasn't been offered a big contract). In fact, he didn't really crack the rotation consistently until the Houston series.

---

---

Yeah, I noticed that. I read that the Spurs have set a limit of being willing to match 3-years $30 million for Simmons. You guys who have watched a lot more of Simmons, would you be comfortable with him being a $10 million dollar player?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Quote:

---

Simmons played great in the playoffs. But he looked not so great in the regular season. He was inconsistent, turnover prone, and didn't get consistent rotation runs (this is why he hasn't been offered a big contract). In fact, he didn't really crack the rotation consistently until the Houston series.

---

---

Yeah, I noticed that. I read that the Spurs have set a limit of being willing to match 3-years $30 million for Simmons. You guys who have watched a lot more of Simmons, would you be comfortable with him being a $10 million dollar player?

---

If Simmons is a ~15ppg scorer with elite defense, 10% of the salary cap for a starting or first wing off the bench is not a bad price.

Spurs haven't set that limit. They are limited by the CBA Early Bird rules. If someone wants to offer him the max, they can't match it even if they wanted to.

Duncan, Kawhi, Parker were damn close to elite during that run. I would take any of of those three during that run over Irving, Love, Thompson or Green. They were absolutely at a high enough/elite level to win a championship. LMA is not on that level and who else on the Spurs beside Kawhi currently is? Maybe Simmons can emerge or maybe Gay can be, but again that's a big unknown.

Also that team had phenomenal ball movement. Diaw, Manu, Duncan and Parker were a huge part of that. Who is the creator and ball movement guys currently that can run an offense at that level? Comparing this Spurs team to that 2014 champ team is a big reach on both pure talent and ball movement.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a mistake to make all of these conclusions after only watching a handful of games. And always referring to yourself as a 'casual fan' doesn't help your cause.

---

---

Well, yeah, I am being honest in how much I watched and when I watched. I know that is unusual for a message board poster to admit such details and that he is probably clueless before spouting off an opinion, but I'll admit that I'm probably clueless!

---

I'm not normally one to run posters off a thread, but I'm going to ask, why are you posting here then? If your only opinion on this team was formed during the playoffs, half of which our second leading scorer was down, and our MVP two-way player went out 3/4s of the way through, then you have an incredibly small view of this team. And it seems like you only feel like riling up Spurs fans because you continue to post on your points despite them being completely ridiculous and already rebutted.

Yes, the Spurs will struggle without Kawhi. Again, what team other than the Warriors would NOT struggle without their star? Do you think Cleveland is anywhere close to who they are without Lebron? It's a stupid argument and one that has been addressed, yet you continue to bring it up.

I wished we had done more this offseason too. TPs injury really screwed up the plan for the FO this offseason I think. And the LMA-Spurs relationship seems like it could be a toxic thing all year. But the FO wont do dumb stuff just to appease the media, fans, and "casual fans". If they feel like they did the best they could for the money and availability out there, then I'll believe them. They've shown they are masterful at running a basketball team when countless people have questioned their decision making.

There is more than scoring to being elite. That was some if the highest level of basketball at both ends that the game has ever seen. Super efficient, great defense and ball movement. I absolutely disagree that those three weren't playing at an elite level.

Pendragon12 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a mistake to make all of these conclusions after only watching a handful of games. And always referring to yourself as a 'casual fan' doesn't help your cause.

---

---

Well, yeah, I am being honest in how much I watched and when I watched. I know that is unusual for a message board poster to admit such details and that he is probably clueless before spouting off an opinion, but I'll admit that I'm probably clueless!

---

I'm not normally one to run posters off a thread, but I'm going to ask, why are you posting here then? If your only opinion on this team was formed during the playoffs, half of which our second leading scorer was down, and our MVP two-way player went out 3/4s of the way through, then you have an incredibly small view of this team. And it seems like you only feel like riling up Spurs fans because you continue to post on your points despite them being completely ridiculous and already rebutted.

Yes, the Spurs will struggle without Kawhi. Again, what team other than the Warriors would NOT struggle without their star? Do you think Cleveland is anywhere close to who they are without Lebron? It's a stupid argument and one that has been addressed, yet you continue to bring it up.

---

I think the Spurs are an interesting team and this has been an interesting thread to follow.

And my last essay post did not rehash that Spurs w/o Kawhi analogy! I had already stopped bringing it up!

Also although I only watched the Spurs when I said I did, I do spend a ridiculous amount of time listening to almost every NBA related podcast out there daily from ESPN, The Ringer, etc. during work or while at the gym...so my head if full of tons of talking head 'analysis' (or nonsense), and the Spurs often come up because they are one of the small handful of teams the talking heads seem to talk about most. So my head is full with all their opining in that regard.

Well said. Look at 2013. Spurs lost a heartbreaking series to the Heat. So they obviously blew it all up, right? No, they let their backup combo guard Gary Neal walk and signed a wing that doesn't play defense and shot .395/.357 for the Bulls the year before and didn't do anything else.

And if you are implying that the Spurs are going back to the perfect game model then why were they so iso heavy the last couple years? LMA definitely doesn't help you with the beautiful game. The PG question is obviously a huge whole if supreme ball movement is the plan. What moves have the Spurs made this off-season that make you think they are going back to that? The ball centric, inefficient shooter Rudy Gay move? Come on man, that doesn't even make sense.

Why would they blow up a team that was a rebound away from winning it all in game 6 of the finals?

Are you comparing that to being swept in the western conf finals by a huge margin?

And I really don't think many want to blow up anything and everyone has said Spurs will still be a very good team.

Most of the conversation centered around upgrading the PG position in lieu of Parker's injury and trying to find a second option if LMA is disgruntled and letting his game slip.

Both those ideas certainly aren't extreme and actually grounded in reason and are no way comparable to 2013.

GatorAg03 said:

---

There is more than scoring to being elite. That was some if the highest level of basketball at both ends that the game has ever seen. Super efficient, great defense and ball movement. I absolutely disagree that those three weren't playing at an elite level.

---

The Spurs played elite as a team. No player was a star. The only all-star on the team was Tony Parker, who was an injury replacement (thanks, Kobe!)

The Spurs won because they had great chemistry, played great as a team and played great defense, not because they had an elite player. Different players stepped up at different times. The Spurs had several very good players, but no one on the team was elite. There was no one that could match up one-on-one consistently with the Durants, LeBrons, etc of the world. No one averaged over 17 points per game. Only one player even averaged over 6.2 rpg and no one got into double digits. Parker led the team with just 5.7apg (obviously not even close to top 10 in the league) but the Spurs led the league in assists. Why? Team basketball.

Again, no one was elite on that team. Players were elite at facets. Kawhi was coming into his own as a perimeter defender. Several players including Danny Green were elite 3 point shooters. But it was just a really well built team of players that bought into a system and had great chemistry.

Quote:

---

And I really don't think many want to blow up anything and everyone has said Spurs will still be a very good team.

---

You have been pretty clear that you don't think the Spurs can win, so you wanted to blow it up to get another elite player. Only way to get another elite player was to blow things up due to cap restrictions. So I was countering your lame arguments.

Quote:

---

The ball centric, inefficient shooter Rudy Gay move?

---

46/37 with True shooting of 56% isn't that inefficient.

Quote:

---

The PG question is obviously a huge whole if supreme ball movement is the plan.

---

Not really. Spurs need players that can move the ball more than elite PG. Tony had 4.8 apg in the playoffs in 2014. I do think LMA ruins that ball movement because he doesn't make decisions quick and stops the ball. I don't think anyone else on the team including gay is incapable of the beautiful game.

Quote:

---

Both those ideas certainly aren't extreme and actually grounded in reason and are no way comparable to 2013.

---

Also grounded in reason is that you do not need multiple elite players to win a title as the Spurs proved in 2014 when their only all-star was just a injury replacement for Kobe.

I was willing to move LMA and Green to get CP3 or another all star caliber side kick for Kawhi. If you consider that blowing it up then again our definitions differ. That's being smart to try to get better. I think the Spurs front office even tried this, but unfortunately things didn't break their way.

You even said LMA isn't great for the beautiful game and seemed to have no problem with the Spurs shopping him. You even said you don't think the Spurs have much of a shot if the Warriors are healthy. I don't understand what you are really arguing about. Is it that you are appalled that I think we got a little worse and are a three seed and have a big gap with the warriors and you think we got a little better and are a two seed?

Quote:

---

I was willing to move LMA and Green to get CP3 or another all star caliber side kick for Kawhi. If you consider that blowing it up then again our definitions differ. That's being smart to try to get better. I think the Spurs front office even tried this, but unfortunately things didn't break their way.

---

I'd trade them both for LeBron or Durant, too. There are lots of things I would do, but this isn't Madden 03. You can't force every trade you want down someone else's throat.

Quote:

---

You even said you don't think the Spurs have much of a shot if the Warriors are healthy.

---

I don't think any team has much of a shot at the Warriors if both teams are healthy.

Quote:

---

I don't understand what you are really arguing about. Is it that you are appalled that I think we got a little worse and are a three seed and have a big gap with the warriors and you think we got a little better and are a two seed?

---

Bottom line is this:

1. You cannot match talent for talent with the Warriors. There is just no possible way. You would need to combine something like LeBron, Giannis, and Wall.
2. A team does not need to have multiple elite players to win a title. You can beat a team with more elite players with great team play. There is no question that the Spurs upgraded their team by adding Gay. There is a lot of questions as to what Simmons/Parker/LMA will be like in 2018, but those are completely unanswerable questions.

Murray just doesn't take care of the ball right now. He's actually shown a great ability to create and he's very disruptive on defense. The question is can he grow enough to be trusted this season. Murray is probably what Ginobili was as a 20 year old. We didn't get Manu till he was 23 or so and he was still reckless.

Murray dribbles like he's playing on the playground...way too high.

Ag Natural said:

---

Murray just doesn't take care of the ball right now. He's actually shown a great ability to create and he's very disruptive on defense. The question is can he grow enough to be trusted this season. Murray is probably what Ginobili was as a 20 year old. We didn't get Manu till he was 23 or so and he was still reckless.

---

He definitely doesn't take care of the ball. He shows signs of being able to create, but he hasn't been able to do it consistently in summer league.

I'm also not sure Manu is very useful as a measuring stick, he's maybe the most unique guard ever to play in the NBA. I'm not writing him off and I hope Murray will get it together in time to contribute in the playoffs next year, but right now he looks at least another couple years away. There are people who are using Murray as the reason we didn't send the money to get a point guard, but that theory doesn't hold up.