Theory: Why the Suns lose early, late, and to the Jazz

[Lorenzo]

the spurs are great yes, but the suns are fully capable of beating them in a seven game series.

I agree. but the spurs are clearly the worst matchup for the suns. especially for steve. I don't know what it is. while he has played VERY well against them at times, he has never been able to beat them in a 7 game series. He has also historically struggled against them in the regular season going back to his mavs days(and I'm talking about wins and losses here more than anything else). we'll see if this year is the year. the west is so tough. I don't think we should get locked on 1 or two teams like we did last year. It was all suns/mavs all year long and the spurs were the team that won. I don't see the spurs winning this year, but they deserve to be favored.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I agree. but the spurs are clearly the worst matchup for the suns. especially for steve. I don't know what it is. while he has played VERY well against them at times, he has never been able to beat them in a 7 game series. He has also historically struggled against them in the regular season going back to his mavs days(and I'm talking about wins and losses here more than anything else). we'll see if this year is the year. the west is so tough. I don't think we should get locked on 1 or two teams like we did last year. It was all suns/mavs all year long and the spurs were the team that won. I don't see the spurs winning this year, but they deserve to be favored.

agreed. saying "the suns are FULLY capable" of beating the Spurs at this point has nothing to back it up. Mavs? Sure. Spurs? No. They played 8 games at relative full strength last year and the Spurs went 5-3, with the edge, just as they have for the last three years. To be the man, you've got to BEAT the man. Till then, we're not "fully capable" of anything in regards to that team I hate with a passion.

 

[azirish]

agreed. saying "the suns are FULLY capable" of beating the Spurs at this point has nothing to back it up. Mavs? Sure. Spurs? No. They played 8 games at relative full strength last year and the Spurs went 5-3, with the edge, just as they have for the last three years. To be the man, you've got to BEAT the man. Till then, we're not "fully capable" of anything in regards to that team I hate with a passion.

If they beat the Spurs in a series, then the term "capable" has little relevance. To flip it around, you are defining the term such that there is absolutely no one capable of beating them when Duncan is completely heathy because no one has (he was banged up in the Mavs series at the end of 2005-06. Since no one is capable of beating them, why bother playing the game?

IMHO, there is a scale from "sure thing" to "absolutely no chance". Obviously the Suns are not in the "sure thing" category, but they rank pretty high compared to most teams including the Cavs that really had no chance. I'm not really convinced that more games would have given the Nuggets any more chance to have won a series with the Spurs. Not absolutely zero chance, but very low.

Would it have been totally out of the question for the Suns to have won last season? That is the meaning of "incapable".

 

[Cheesebeef]

If they beat the Spurs in a series, then the term "capable" has little relevance. To flip it around, you are defining the term such that there is absolutely no one capable of beating them when Duncan is completely heathy because no one has (he was banged up in the Mavs series at the end of 2005-06. Since no one is capable of beating them, why bother playing the game?

where did I say "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CAPABLE" - I'm arguing theat the idea that we're "fully capable" has yet to proven. Please don't put words into my mouth to divert the conversation and make me look foolish. It's really an ugly argumentative tactic.

IMHO, there is a scale from "sure thing" to "absolutely no chance". Obviously the Suns are not in the "sure thing" category, but they rank pretty high compared to most teams including the Cavs that really had no chance. I'm not really convinced that more games would have given the Nuggets any more chance to have won a series with the Spurs. Not absolutely zero chance, but very low.

Would it have been totally out of the question for the Suns to have won last season? That is the meaning of "incapable".

George, where did I say we're we're "incapable"? Again, I'm arguing that we've yet to show we're FULLY CAPABLE. Please don't put words into my mouth like "incapable". Again, it's an ugly argumentative tactic. I've tried to tone down my posts toward you since the summer, and I'd appreciate if you didn't try to start fights by projecting (what I believe to be completely) completely unfounded thoughts on to my comments.

 

[BuddyFranklin]

Build a bridge Cheese Burger and get over it.

 

[arwillan]

agreed. saying "the suns are FULLY capable" of beating the Spurs at this point has nothing to back it up. Mavs? Sure. Spurs? No. They played 8 games at relative full strength last year and the Spurs went 5-3, with the edge, just as they have for the last three years. To be the man, you've got to BEAT the man. Till then, we're not "fully capable" of anything in regards to that team I hate with a passion.

i beg to differ, they are fully capable. say they keep their cool last year and win game 5. they are 3-2 going into SA. you have to like our odds there, against the spurs or anyone else. i think even the spurs know that they would have been in big trouble at that point. Say nash doesn't have to sit out due to blood at the end of game 1 and we win it (which would have been very possible).there you go, that's 4 wins right there.i hate to bring up the past, i think we all did our fair share of "what if" after the series ended.

another thing to point out is that the spurs beat us by smaller margins of points last year. we blew them out twice. once by ~20 and the other by 17. i know it doesn't mean all that much but.....

 

[Stargazer]

Last year, the Sputs beat the Suns by staying at home on our 3-point shooters and forcing Nash to score himself or try to get a pick and roll going with Amare. It worked because none of our other players was really capable of creating anything on their own. I love Bell, for example, but you can completely neutralize him from the offense by simply sticking a man on him at the 3-line and not leaving him, because he's not really a threat to drive or do anything else. Same for JR, Marion to an extent. LB can create a shot with his speed at times, but last year, at least, he was stronger as a spot-up shooter. This is a lot to put on one guy's shoulders, but I'm hopeful that Hill might help solve that problem.

That still leaves the defensive side of things to solve, of course, but at least in terms of our offense, I'm thinking we may be better positioned this year than we were last year.

 

[Cheesebeef]

i beg to differ, they are fully capable. say they keep their cool last year

but they didn't. the mental part of the game is almost if not more important than the physical part, especially against the Spurs.

and win game 5. they are 3-2 going into SA. you have to like our odds there, against the spurs or anyone else. i think even the spurs know that they would have been in big trouble at that point. Say nash doesn't have to sit out due to blood at the end of game 1 and we win it (which would have been very possible).

right, except the fact that when Nash went out, we were losing and had yet to show the ability to actually get a stop against Duncan or Parker at that point. I mean, we weren't even winning that game when Nash when out.

Thus, I don't see how there's "4 wins right there". Sure, there's what ifs, but "fully capable" to me seems to indicate we've actually seen us accomplish this before. There just seems to be a certainty to it, maybe it's the "fully" part of it.

another thing to point out is that the spurs beat us by smaller margins of points last year. we blew them out twice. once by ~20 and the other by 17. i know it doesn't mean all that much but.....

doesn't mean anything. A win is a win, whether it's by 1 or 50 points, especially when our team is at the wrong end of the W-L column.

 

[arwillan]

right, except the fact that when Nash went out, we were losing and had yet to show the ability to actually get a stop against Duncan or Parker at that point. I mean, we weren't even winning that game when Nash when out.

Thus, I don't see how there's "4 wins right there". Sure, there's what ifs, but "fully capable" to me seems to indicate we've actually seen us accomplish this before. There just seems to be a certainty to it, maybe it's the "fully" part of it.

we were really close at that point though. we all gave up in that 2ot game against the mavs (which was like a playoff game) and look what happened....nash hit a clutch bucket. maybe i shouldnt say fully capable.....i'll say the suns beating the spurs is "fathomable", or "within reach"

 

[Lorenzo]

we were really close at that point though. we all gave up in that 2ot game against the mavs (which was like a playoff game) and look what happened....nash hit a clutch bucket. maybe i shouldnt say fully capable.....i'll say the suns beating the spurs is "fathomable", or "within reach"

fathomable is more politically correct.

 

[Lorenzo]

If they beat the Spurs in a series, then the term "capable" has little relevance. To flip it around, you are defining the term such that there is absolutely no one capable of beating them when Duncan is completely heathy because no one has (he was banged up in the Mavs series at the end of 2005-06. Since no one is capable of beating them, why bother playing the game?

IMHO, there is a scale from "sure thing" to "absolutely no chance". Obviously the Suns are not in the "sure thing" category, but they rank pretty high compared to most teams including the Cavs that really had no chance. I'm not really convinced that more games would have given the Nuggets any more chance to have won a series with the Spurs. Not absolutely zero chance, but very low.

Would it have been totally out of the question for the Suns to have won last season? That is the meaning of "incapable".

a lot of spurs fans used that excuse after that series. I just don't think TD was THAT injured in the playoffs. He averaged 30 points a game and had 40+ in that game 7 if I remember correctly. I'm not a spurs fan, nor an expert on the spurs, but that may have been one of TD's best playoff series of his career from a scoring standpoint. The mavs couldn't guard him. I hate to see what he could of done if he was 100% LOL.