Spurs file formal protest saying clock didn't sta

[Plainview1981]

start? Is that true? If so, it tells me they are worried

now. If they did this I hope they get slaughtered in game

6.

[Wretch]

Although it could be possible, I read over on a Spurs messageboard that Duncan's shot actually went through the net with .7 seconds left in the game; and regardless, it looked like the clock started moving as soon as Fish got the ball.

If anything, the Spurs should be concerned about the 1st 3 quarters of their play - and all those wide open looks they were blowing that let the game come down to 1 possession.

[BOShforRoy]

check out this site it shows that the clock should be at .8 not .4

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/storag...s/08seconds.jpg

[Wretch]

That's what they were talking about on the Spurs board. They didn't have that picture, but someone must have noticed.

On a side note, I think it's kinda stupid that the NBA uses instant replay to review the last shot of a game - and yet, they rely on a human's judgment to sort out tenths of seconds on the shot clock.

[Plainview1981]

Spurs didn't have a bunch of injuried teams to take

advange of did they? They are d@mn lucky they won the

title last year.

[cyman3]

yea... thats what it comes down to

they shouldnt have let it come down to 1 possesion..

as much as i dont like the lakers (nor the spurs), shaqs right... "one lucky shot, deserves another"

Duncans shot was BS... as was Fishers...

so it cancels out.. lol

[Wretch]

But both of Duncan's shots were complete BS! I give him more credit for his last shot than the one he banked of the glass from the top of the key...

[Plainview1981]

After the Heat get out of the playoffs that's about all

I need to see of the playoffs. Spurs need a big talent

upgrade.

[Wretch]

I think he would have been the difference. They played up to LA's level, and better to take a 2-0 series lead; so, it's obvious that they've got what it takes. Though, you have to think that with Jackson in the lineup, those games that LA eeked out or closed out late would have been much closer or even won.

Think about all those open looks that Horry, Devin Brown, and Turkoglu were getting...and missing. There were critical possisions throughout the series (and not just late in the games) where a 3 pointer would have changed the momentum and the course of the game. Were it Jackson taking those 3's...or even just handling the ball...I think those shots get made.

San Antonio should have paid that man; or at least compromised to see if he could sustain it for another year or so. The joke was on him last summer, but Jack got the last laugh.

[cyman3]

IMO- tim duncan did his part... he was bein double and triple teamed...

it was his teammates who couldnt do their job and hit the wide open shots.

they sure are missin STEPHEN JACKSON...

havin RASHO instead of David Robinson doesnt exactly HELP the cause either...

while im not a big fan of STEPHEN A SMITH.... he was right, the SPURS arent winnin a championship with RASHO...

[Plainview1981]

I think he would have been the difference. They played up to LA's level, and better to take a 2-0 series lead; so, it's obvious that they've got what it takes."

Lakers scraped the triangle at the right time. Shaq basically

punked Duncan those last 4 games. and that made alot of difference. They would have lost with or without Stephen

Jackson because Jackson isn't a good enough player to win

you a series. How'd Jackson get the last laugh? He ended

up playing on one of the worst teams in the league. Don't

see that he gained all that much. If he remains here in

Atlanta I'd suggest that he lost out.

[Wretch]

True enough, the Lakers changed the gameplan out of desperation to win the series. But they were still down 2-0. Kobe and Shaq have been running under, and winning with, the triangle...so It's not like scrapping it would really have that much of an effect on them.

The game rides on the back of superstars; but if that is all that it took, then LA would have swept the Spurs. Let alone scrap out a 6 game series that could have went either way (considering last second heroics). I don't care if Jackson was an 80 year old woman. If he knocks down those open three's that Horry, Turk, and Brown were getting (which he would) that is an entirely different series.

The Spurs missed Jackson's outside shooting. You may not agree with it, but that is the general consensus. They missed Robinson, but with a guy out there who consistently knocks down the open look...they would have won game 5, maybe game 4, and the series would look very different right now.

...and it doesn't matter where Jack spent the last season; he's getting paid next year. Either the Spurs are going to bring him back at HIS price or Atl will. If wins were all that mattered, then Jackson would have taken the deal San Antonio laid on the table for him. He stands to make, perhaps, twice as much money - and could actually end up back with the Spurs.

You could say a guy like Kobe Bryant loses out if he takes the same amount of money to come to Atl - and ends up losing. But for someone who comes from nothing like Jack to come out like he probably will this summer, after everyone ridiculed him... He's lost nothing and has gained a good paycheck.

[Plainview1981]

but if that is all that it took, then LA would have swept the Spurs"

Well, they won the last few games. The Lakers made adjustments

as that happens. They shut down Tony Parker. A mediocre player

like Stephen Jackson isn't going to win this series. Jackson

looked good in the Hawks YMCA offense....But in a structed

system he only shoots 40% and 33% in three's.

"If he knocks down those open three's that Horry, Turk, and Brown were getting (which he would) that is an entirely different series."

Can you prove it? Jackson is no better than Hedo to be honest with you. Inb fact, SJ only shot 34% in three's

this year. He isn't all that good of a 3pt shooter.

"If wins were all that mattered, then Jackson would have taken the deal San Antonio laid on the table for him. He stands to make, perhaps, twice as much money - and could actually end up back with the Spurs."

If he wants to stay with a sh!tty franchise. If he wants

to actually matter he'll go elsewhere.

"ou could say a guy like Kobe Bryant loses out if he takes the same amount of money to come to Atl "

That's not going to happen. The problem with you and SOME

others on this message board is that you like in a fantasy

land if you believe Atlanta has any shot at Kobe. The only

way anybody comes to the Hawks is if they want a bloated

contract and winning doesn't matter to them.

Stephen Jackson sucks. When you put him in a system he's

a out of control inconsistant scorer. When you just let

him roam around and do what he wants(and lose)then he

looks better than he really is.

Basically, you're whole thoughts on Stephen Jackson is

hearsay that can't be proven.

[Plainview1981]

Well this is a bad franchise until the Owners back up what

they say. When you haven't made the playoffs in 5 years

you are bad. I have more faith under the new Hawks than

I did the last one. But I will not get my hopes up until

I see the owners PROVE they are commited to winning.

[Wretch]

I understand your mentality and your lack of respect for all but about 5 players in the NBA. So debating the issue with you is as absurd as the shallow opinions you post.

I do want to say this: I have never said that Kobe Bryant was coming to Atl. Not once. Not here, not on the Real GM board, not anywhere. In fact, I am a firm believer that we have very little chance at signing him and have never changed my stance on that. So exactly what kind of fantasy am I living in?

The point that I was making, was a hypothetical situation - where you could say that someone loses out by playing for a bad franchise. Kobe would have no room to laugh if he left the Lakers to join us...and both teams continued to struggle and missed the playoffs. Stephen Jackson is not in the same boat.

The only other thing that I can say is that it takes a team to win basketball games. Stars are the most important. But without a Stever Kerr, John Paxon, Derek Fisher, Dan Majerle or other significant role players on your team...then you will not win. Do you not understand that?

Jackson only flourishes in YMCA style basketball...?

First of all, what will happen if Jackson continues to be productive and makes the bigs shots for a playoff team next year. Will you still have room to say the same thing? That's a pretty short-sighted and ill informed opinion. The fact that he played well for the Spurs last year is enough to deflate your hot-air baloon.

Even if you were right, it wouldn't really doesn't matter at all. All he'd have to do is stand out at the 3 point line and nail the shots that San Antonio was missing - which if you watched the series with any kind of basketball IQ you would have noticed Turk and Horry missing over and over again. Jackson takes that ball and either hits the open 3 or he takes it into the lane.

Of course the series isn't won by Stephen Jackson, it wasn't his team...no more than the Bulls were Paxon's team, or the Celtics were DJ's team, or the Lakers were Cooper's team. But he is that player that takes the shot when the Stars are smothered - and makes it. He did it for them last year, he did it for us this year, and if he were playing for the Spurs he'd be doing it now. He'll probably be doing it next year making twice as much money as San Antonio was willing to pay him...

And that gives him the last laugh.

Say what you want Maniac, but it just don't amount to much. Oh and BTW - check this out (here). That's a list of guys who shoot the best 3 point percentage in the league...sorted by those who with the most shot attempts.

Quote:

---

Jackson

looked good in the Hawks YMCA offense....But in a structed

system he only shoots 40% and 33% in three's.

---

You are clueless.

[Plainview1981]

The only other thing that I can say is that it takes a team to win basketball games. Stars are the most important. But without a Stever Kerr, John Paxon, Derek Fisher, Dan Majerle or other significant role players on your team...then you will not win. Do you not understand that? "

Those guys were high percentage pure shooters. Stephen Jackson

is NOT. He's a streaky shooter that shoots 33% or so.

"it wouldn't really doesn't matter at all. All he'd have to do is stand out at the 3 point line and nail the shots that San Antonio was missing - which if you watched the series with any kind of basketball IQ you would have noticed Turk and Horry missing over and over again. Jackson takes that ball and either hits the open 3 or he takes it into the lane. "

These is NOTHING to prove he'd do any better. Nor is there

any proof that the Lakers wouldn't adjust to Stephen Jackson

if he was there. There is a thing called ADJUSTMENTS.

"

Say what you want Maniac, but it just don't amount to much. Oh and BTW - check this out (here). That's a list of guys who shoot the best 3 point percentage in the league...sorted by those who with the most shot attempts. "

I seen horrible shooter JT on list. That says enough for

me)

Jackson's %'s does nothing to lead me to believe he'd do

so much better. 34%? WOW! He really tore it up this year.

The funny thing is that Chris Crawford looked like a NBA

player this year. Yet he clearly is not. THe only thing

you're stats suggest is that he made alot because he took

alot.

"Jackson only flourishes in YMCA style basketball...?

First of all, what will happen if Jackson continues to be productive and makes the bigs shots for a playoff team next year. Will you still have room to say the same thing? That's a pretty short-sighted and ill informed opinion. The fact that he played well for the Spurs last year is enough to deflate your hot-air baloon."

Lets see, he shot a whole 32% last year from 3pt land. Yeah,

he really tore it up last year didn't he? His career three

point percentage in the playoffs (33MPG) is 33%....Not

exactually toasting it is it? Considering how many open

shots he got that's an aweful low percentage don't you

think?

You just rant on about stuff you CAN'T prove. He coulda

done this....He woulda done that....When there is noway

to prove it. Being that SJ is a streaky shooter you can't

prove he could have done anything. The Spurs lost because

the Lakers started playing more to they're potential. One

average inconsistant player isn't likely to change that.

And yes, Stephen Jackson struggles when there is a post

player on the team. Tries to do too much and turns the

ball over. In this second halfs YMCA offense it made

scrubs like Crawford look like decent players whenever

guys just take shots with nothing on the line. Further

more, Jackson only shot 31%(about the same as he did

for the Spurs last year)before Reef was traded. His

3pt % went to 37% afterwards. What goes more to prove

my theory.

Bottomline, you can't be sure what adjustments the other

team would make. Therefore it's stupid to say"if they'd

only had Jackson, they would have won" you don't know

that. Based on career numbers Hedo is the better shooter.

Hedo had a bad series shooting the ball....There is nothing

to prove SJ would have done so much better.

[Wretch]

Adieu.

[Plainview1981]

I don't want to get into a long arguement. We've done it

too much. It isn't worth it. We'll agree to dissagree I

guess. We'll never know who's right anyway. Steaky shooters

can be helpful or they can be a total flop(as Turk was in

the Lakers series)

[pathway23]

33% from 3 is good. it is like shooting 50% from 2. If Jax were shooting those shots he would nail them. I'd like to see the stat breakdowns, for Jax's clutch 3 pt shooting. I guarantee you he shoots 40-50% in that situation. He was money in the clutch for the Spurs against the Lakers last season and no reason to think he wouldn't have been in the playoffs this year, if anything he would have been better. I've noticed that he matured over the course of the season, played more in control, started mixing his game with penetration. I hope we are able to keep him for the right price.

The Spurs only had Ginobili and Parker to slash to the basket, they needed Jax to do that as well. They didn't spread the floor well enough, they didn't have enough athleticism, and the key : THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE HEART THAT SJAX WOULD BRING!

[Plainview1981]

Well if you think 33% is good that is up to you. However, that

isn't exactually great. Not enough to have made much of a

difference. The problem is that some are Lakers haters and will do everything to not give the Lakers credit for winning it. As I said above, the NBA has one good team and the rest

is filler. Stephen Jackson isn't going to win you a series.

The Spurs won the title last year because they faced teams

that were beatup. Notice how the only healthy team the Suns

took them the full distance? The Spurs likely would have lost

anyway. Stephen Jackson doesn't make much of a difference

because he isn't that good of a player to start with.