OKC Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs WCF

[largebillsonlyplease]

What happened to the "unbeatable" Spurs talk? What have I been saying since the beginning of the thread? KD, Harden...Westbrick, didn't let them off the hook with jumpshots(Westbrick did sometimes) They made the Spurs play them....OKC closed out on the shooters.......Wow what a difference.....

Again I'm not saying the Spurs aren't a good team, but this unbeatable shit is nonsense...

Shout out to LBP who seen the same thing.

all i have is a hope and a prayer
if they want to be great and win they need to simply play like they did last night...they didn't even have a good game and blew them out.

1st game they had the lead then got erratic and lost the game could've won that.

2nd game it fell apart they showed heart and came back had a shot but it was too much... they racked up garbage points so the stats looked better...but the spurs had to fight to the end to win

game 3 the thunders play correctly....and its blow out city...

these teams are even.

next game is a must win for the thunder as well and they better play like it is

 

[FJP]

Funny thing is cats like killa were talking as if the Thunder have to play a perfect game to beat the Spurs..CLEARLY last night was the not the case. What they have to do is attack. When they don't use their athleticism they give the Spurs a break. The Spurs have a great system with no real individual defenders. Dallas had those last year. They could throw Stevenson and Marion out on the perimeter and bother Durant and Westbrook some...But with SA if OKC makes them work, it's a problem.

 

[Rick Spanish]

Funny thing is cats like killa were talking as if the Thunder have to play a perfect game to beat the Spurs..CLEARLY last night was the not the case. What they have to do is attack. When they don't use their athleticism they give the Spurs a break. The Spurs have a great system with no real individual defenders. Dallas had those last year. They could throw Stevenson and Marion out on the perimeter and bother Durant and Westbrook some...But with SA if OKC makes them work, it's a problem.

The Spurs had 21 turnovers last night.. Just saying. Not trying to take anything away from the Thunder because Thabo had a great game, but that was the key stat that contributed to the win IMO..

 

[Amajorfucup]

Funny thing is cats like killa were talking as if the Thunder have to play a perfect game to beat the Spurs..CLEARLY last night was the not the case. What they have to do is attack. When they don't use their athleticism they give the Spurs a break. The Spurs have a great system with no real individual defenders. Dallas had those last year. They could throw Stevenson and Marion out on the perimeter and bother Durant and Westbrook some...But with SA if OKC makes them work, it's a problem.

Totally disagree. It has nothing to do with OKC attacking or using their athleticism. SA can run and maintain a fast pace with any team in the league. The previous games were fast pace games where OKC used its athleticism while getting handled. SA started off the game lethargic and took poor care of the ball. Early turnovers and defensive pressure decided this game. Add in homecourt advantage and SA conceding defeat toward the end of quarter 3 and there you have it. SA had 21turnovers which resulted in about 24points.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

The Spurs had 21 turnovers last night.. Just saying. Not trying to take anything away from the Thunder because Thabo had a great game, but that was the key stat that contributed to the win IMO..

the spurs have turned the ball over every game that's due to the athleticism of the thunder. game 1 the spurs had high turnovers and were down it was the juump shooting that cost them the game.

last night wasn't something that was a fluke as far as what they did being effective doing it.

it has to be in their dna to play like that every time out
if they do that they can win

if they revert back to jump shooting and not attacking and switching then they'll lose

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

Totally disagree. It has nothing to do with OKC attacking or using their athleticism. SA can run and maintain a fast pace with any team in the league. The previous games were fast pace games where OKC used its athleticism while getting handled. SA started off the game lethargic and took poor care of the ball. Early turnovers and defensive pressure decided this game. Add in homecourt advantage and SA conceding defeat toward the end of quarter 3 and there you have it. SA had 21turnovers which resulted in about 24points.

in game 1 they had the same type of ratio and were down. okc kept perkins in the game ibaka didn't play
seffalos wasn't on parker or ginobili
and they chose to double duncan... they weren't getting handled in game 1. in game 1 the thunder went away from what worked and didn't adjust and lost the game.

in game 2 it all fell apart for them they didn't hustle they were lethargic as well which is why i was saying from the beginning they weren't playing with intensity.

once they did play with it, it was an even game pretty much but they had fallen too far behind to tie the game but they DID come back...

SA conceded deafeat after 3 because this team isn't the clippers, you're not gonna come back down that much.

at the same time okc didn't concede defeat and got within real striking distance and a couple of costly plays on both ends from making it really interesting in the final moments..

 

[Amajorfucup]

the spurs have turned the ball over every game that's due to the athleticism of the thunder. game 1 the spurs had high turnovers and were down it was the jump shooting that cost them the game.

last night wasn't something that was a fluke as far as what they did being effective doing it.

it has to be in their dna to play like that every time out
if they do that they can win

if they revert back to jump shooting and not attacking and switching then they'll lose

This is false. The distinction between last night and the previous two games were turnovers and the SA response to OKC defensive pressure. Yes SA had turnover issues in game one but no where near the level of last night. Game one had maybe 15 while last night was 21. I do think OKC made a concerted effort to attack the basket more (particularly Durant) but they still took bad shots. However, the lead they realized from the turnovers did more to effect the pace and outcome of the game than anything else. SA started off with extremely careless and sloppy play. Those 1st quarter turnovers had little to do with the athleticism of OKC.

 

[Rick Spanish]

the spurs have turned the ball over every game that's due to the athleticism of the thunder. game 1 the spurs had high turnovers and were down it was the juump shooting that cost them the game.

last night wasn't something that was a fluke as far as what they did being effective doing it.

it has to be in their dna to play like that every time out
if they do that they can win

if they revert back to jump shooting and not attacking and switching then they'll lose

I feel what you're saying, but you have to look at the turnover disparity, bruh. That's what matters. In Game 1 the Spurs had 13 TO's, but the Thunder had 10, so they just about cancelled each other out. Last night the Spurs has 21 TO's, and the Thunder only had 7 TO's as a team. That's a 14 Turnover swing... That made a HUGE difference.

Forcing the Spurs to make errors, moving the ball around, and like you said "attacking the rim" is what it will take for the Thunder to win Game 4 and even up the series..

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

This is false. The distinction between last night and the previous two games were turnovers and the SA response to OKC defensive pressure. Yes SA had turnover issues in game one but no where near the level of last night. Game one had maybe 15 while last night was 21. I do think OKC made a concerted effort to attack the basket more (particularly Durant) but they still took bad shots. However, the lead they realized from the turnovers did more to effect the pace and outcome of the game than anything else. SA started off with extremely careless and sloppy play. Those 1st quarter turnovers had little to do with the athleticism of OKC.

how when the formula is proven to be effective? when they play intense on defense...they force sa to turn the ball over because the passes they throw and are accustomed to aren't open.

in game one they had 15.... but that was in the first half, when okc was playing intense defense and not taking horrible shots.. westbrook was under control.

2nd half they totally went away from it and the defense in the paint was nonexistent due to ibaka not even playing and they lost the game.


last night instead of doing it for 1 half like they have the previous 2 game... (1st half in game 1 and 2nd half in game 2..well really end of 3rd and the 4th quarter) they did it for the entire game.

the formula works.

attack the rim limited jump shots and make the extra pass
switch everything
no perkins
seffalosa on best perimeter player
and westbrook under control and pick his spots...

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

I feel what you're saying, but you have to look at the turnover disparity, bruh. That's what matters. In Game 1 the Spurs had 13 TO's, but the Thunder had 10, so they just about cancelled each other out. Last night the Spurs has 21 TO's, and the Thunder only had 7 TO's as a team. That's a 14 Turnover swing... That made a HUGE difference.

Forcing the Spurs to make errors, moving the ball around, and like you said "attacking the rim" is what it will take for the Thunder to win Game 4 and even up the series..

exactly right.
and that's the formula i've been saying will be the way to win. the teams are even so the adjustments had to be made...

attack the rim and force the calls attack the rim and they're forced to leave the spot up shooters
switch everything on the pick and roll play muhammed aldrige collinson more along with ibaka...

put in cook to shoot wide open 3's and put him on someone like danny green who doesn't create his own shot.

don't double...let the big men help if you get beat... no perimeter players leave the spot up shooters...

this is all stuff that can be done, im not saying stuff like they need to trap full court play a triangle and 2 and stuff

 

[Amajorfucup]

in game 1 they had the same type of ratio and were down. okc kept perkins in the game ibaka didn't play
seffalos wasn't on parker or ginobili
and they chose to double duncan... they weren't getting handled in game 1. in game 1 the thunder went away from what worked and didn't adjust and lost the game.

Ibaka didnt get benched until the 4th quarter of game one. In hindsight it wasnt a good move but during the game it was a some what decent strategic move. Also, they doubled and tripled Duncan last night, only difference being is that the help was delayed. They would wait for Duncan to put the ball on the floor and then collapse. And yes, Thabo had an impact on the game but that supports my point that OKC's "attacking and athleticism" were not the difference maker last night.

in game 2 it all fell apart for them they didn't hustle they were lethargic as well which is why i was saying from the beginning they weren't playing with intensity.

once they did play with it, it was an even game pretty much but they had fallen too far behind to tie the game but they DID come back...

Disagree. It had nothing to do with them not hustling or being lethargic. They just got a clinic run on them by the Spurs. I dont care what the final score was or how the boxscore makes it look like that made it close... that game was a blowout.

SA conceded deafeat after 3 because this team isn't the clippers, you're not gonna come back down that much.

Nah man. They conceded defeat because they realized it wasnt their night. They were due a loss and they played like shit from the first jumpball. There was no need to do what OKC did the first two games....run your starters into the ground to make a blowout look respectable in the boxscore. SJax single handedly closed the lead from 23 to 15. Pop could have run the starters back in to make a run and get the game to a more eye friendly number. He decided against that. It was the right move to make all things considered.

at the same time okc didn't concede defeat and got within real striking distance and a couple of costly plays on both ends from making it really interesting in the final moments..

No they didnt. Again, you are letting the final scores effect your analysis. Yes, they were in striking distance but they were not in position to win those games...certainly not game 2 with the way that Tony Parker was destroying Westbrook.

 

[Amajorfucup]

how when the formula is proven to be effective? when they play intense on defense...they force sa to turn the ball over because the passes they throw and are accustomed to aren't open.

in game one they had 15.... but that was in the first half, when okc was playing intense defense and not taking horrible shots.. westbrook was under control...

But those early turnovers were NOT caused by OKC and Westbrook was NOT playing under control.
During the first quarter of last nights game SA had 4unforced turnovers, mainly by Ginobili and TD. Westbrook, on his way to a 5for15night came down on 3occasions (before i stopped counting) and jacked shots without anyone else touching the ball.

What im saying is OKC played the same way they play everynight. The difference last night was the careless play of SA, turnovers, and better perimeter defense by OKC (and in that order).

Im saying that is a figment of one's imagination to attribute last nights win to OKC attacking the basket more or using their athleticism to their advantage.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

Ibaka didnt get benched until the 4th quarter of game one. In hindsight it wasnt a good move but during the game it was a some what decent strategic move. Also, they doubled and tripled Duncan last night, only difference being is that the help was delayed. They would wait for Duncan to put the ball on the floor and then collapse. And yes, Thabo had an impact on the game but that supports my point that OKC's "attacking and athleticism" were not the difference maker last night.

nah it made no sense to do that and go with perkins. perkins isn't useful this series.

Disagree. It had nothing to do with them not hustling or being lethargic. They just got a clinic run on them by the Spurs. I dont care what the final score was or how the boxscore makes it look like that made it close... that game was a blowout.

i disagree with that, there were point in the game where they had opportunities to do things and they just didn't they got out hustled and didn't work as hard.. i could see it in their play there's a difference. it was a combination of sa being on and okc not playing hard.
i didn't say it was close..i just said in real striking distance and a real chance to do something which they did.

Nah man. They conceded defeat because they realized it wasnt their night. They were due a loss and they played like shit from the first jumpball. There was no need to do what OKC did the first two games....run your starters into the ground to make a blowout look respectable in the boxscore.

that is not what happened in the 2nd game... the first game they were up and lost the lead it wasn't a blowout
2nd game they didn't give up to show they had heart. they're young they're not the spurs you're not worrying about running and 22-23 year old into the ground...only 30+ like the spurs.

SJax single handedly closed the lead from 23 to 15. Pop could have run the starters back in to make a run and get the game to a more eye friendly number. He decided against that. It was the right move to make all things considered.

i don't disagree with his move to rest his older players which is the difference between the two. the sole reason they're even in shape is because of rest so his strategy has been working and ive never questioned any of them...including last series when they were hacking lewis and co.

No they didnt. Again, you are letting the final scores effect your analysis. Yes, they were in striking distance but they were not in position to win those games...certainly not game 2 with the way that Tony Parker was destroying Westbrook.

they were in striking distance in game 2, i didn't think they would win.
however i don't see how you lump game 1 with game 2 when they had a lead, it was close and took some real effort to pull it out
where was the blowout and where was the game was never in doubt in that one?

games 2, and 3 the outcome was decided we agree.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

But those early turnovers were NOT caused by OKC and Westbrook was NOT playing under control.
During the first quarter of last nights game SA had 4unforced turnovers, mainly by Ginobili and TD. Westbrook, on his way to a 5for15night came down on 3occasions (before i stopped counting) and jacked shots without anyone else touching the ball.

no he wasn't and that's why in the beginning the game wasn't a blowout it was close and sa had the lead which directly goes to my point of the importance of him being under control and its a different ball game...it directly proves that.

and you know and i know ginobili is a turnover machine lol we know this. td not so much but let's be real ginobili makes 3 questionable plays a quarter and hides them with flops and step back 3 pointers and a little behind the back pass and all is forgiven lol..

right westbrook wasn't under control and like i said the game was close and the spurs were up at 1 point so how is that coming out slow? they both were feeling it out and then the light bulb went off when he went out and he kept it going when he came back in.

What im saying is OKC played the same way they play everynight. The difference last night was the careless play of SA, turnovers, and better perimeter defense by OKC (and in that order).

that's not true. okc didn't play like that at all really. they attacked the rim which has been the biggest problem with them. being labeled a jump shooting team....
when they attack the basket they become so much better and they have the ability to attack it every time down and get the shots they want...sa cannot guard okc there are no adjustments they can make short of just outright trapping westbrook harden and durant or denying them the touch... if they're attacking nobody can stay in front of them...and all 3 create their own shot.

and we still disagree about the turnovers you believe it had more to do with sa i believe it had more to do with okc's intensity and commitment to playing it which forced them.

Im saying that is a figment of one's imagination to attribute last nights win to OKC attacking the basket more or using their athleticism to their advantage.

this is exactly why they won and how they can win...
they attacked the basket which got points in the paint
and they switched everything which took away the effectiveness of the pick and roll...

how is that imagination...that really happened

 

[Amajorfucup]

nah it made no sense to do that and go with perkins. perkins isn't useful this series...



they were in striking distance in game 2, i didn't think they would win.
however i don't see how you lump game 1 with game 2 when they had a lead, it was close and took some real effort to pull it out
where was the blowout and where was the game was never in doubt in that one?

games 2, and 3 the outcome was decided we agree.

Perk is very limited on what he can contribute this series. I have always been vocal about him and the fact that his value is questionable at best on any given night. I will admit though, that he holds ground well and is somewhat effective on the block against Duncan. And by grouping games one and two i only meant that the outcome was determined faster than the final score would lead one to think. Though game one was not a blowout it was not as close as the 3point win would lead one to believe.

Again, OKC played pretty much the same in all three games (they did make slight defensive adjustments but nothing monumental), the BIGGEST difference in last nights win was the fact that SA came out unfocused and played poorly early on. That is my main point in all of this.

 

[Amajorfucup]

no he wasn't and that's why in the beginning the game wasn't a blowout it was close and sa had the lead which directly goes to my point of the importance of him being under control and its a different ball game...it directly proves that.

Actually it started out 8-0 but they ended the quarter being either tied or up by 2. The second quarter is where that same sloppy play resulted in a deficit for SA.

and you know and i know ginobili is a turnover machine lol we know this. td not so much but let's be real ginobili makes 3 questionable plays a quarter and hides them with flops and step back 3 pointers and a little behind the back pass and all is forgiven lol..

Agreed.

right westbrook wasn't under control and like i said the game was close and the spurs were up at 1 point so how is that coming out slow? they both were feeling it out and then the light bulb went off when he went out and he kept it going when he came back in.

SA never recovered from the 2nd quarter turnovers and deficit.I think Westbrook started the 2nd on the bench and they took the lead then. But that happened through defense...turnovers and blocked shots led to fastbreak and paint points for OKC.

that's not true. okc didn't play like that at all really. they attacked the rim which has been the biggest problem with them. being labeled a jump shooting team....
when they attack the basket they become so much better and they have the ability to attack it every time down and get the shots they want...sa cannot guard okc there are no adjustments they can make short of just outright trapping westbrook harden and durant or denying them the touch... if they're attacking nobody can stay in front of them...and all 3 create their own shot.

This is misperception bro. OKC played the same they have all series offensively. They didnt attack the basket at a higher rate. Durant had more drives but other than that the biggest offensive adjustment was an added pass before the shot. It seemed as though they attacked the basket due to the fastbreak points and turnovers of SA. Again, the biggest difference was SA turnovers.

and we still disagree about the turnovers you believe it had more to do with sa i believe it had more to do with okc's intensity and commitment to playing it which forced them.

I give them credit for defensive intensity. Perk clearly, played better and Thabo was great on the perimeter.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

we agree on the effect but not the cause. you put more on it being something sa did as opposed to something okc can continue to do.
understandable.

i fully expect sa to make adjustments however if okc is focused i believe they can win this series but it starts with game 4 its a must win.

we agree on ginobili

perkins he does do his job but the offense they run he just is too slow to switch everything

also he travels every time he touches the ball on offense you're more surprised it goes in than anything


thank you for not resorting to name calling and having a discussion

 

[THE DRIZZY]

Amazing what happens when OKC moved the ball and Durant touched the ball. Like I said he does not have to shoot every possession just touch it to either move the ball or make a play for a teammate. Westbrook is good for being aggressive and you don't want to change that. I am glad now OKC finally realized that Durant not even touching the ball on consecutive offensive possessions is absurd.

 

[curryshotta]

I watched that game. Other than the SA turnovers I didnt see much that OKC cracked the code on.

Now the next game may change my mind. SA still more or less generated better shot opportunities when they werent coughing it up

 

[Amajorfucup]

we agree on the effect but not the cause. you put more on it being something sa did as opposed to something okc can continue to do.
understandable.

i fully expect sa to make adjustments however if okc is focused i believe they can win this series but it starts with game 4 its a must win.

we agree on ginobili

perkins he does do his job but the offense they run he just is too slow to switch everything

also he travels every time he touches the ball on offense you're more surprised it goes in than anything


thank you for not resorting to name calling and having a discussion

No doubt bro. We will have a better idea after game four of which of us is closer to right. I just have a hard time accepting the "Spurs were exposed" bullshit you hear the clueless of bgol spout off after the loss. The team hadnt lost since fucking April and they have owned the Thunder of late. There was no magic pill that resulted in that win for Okc. It doesnt work like that. Yes Okc stepped it up defensively but the Spurs were incredibly sloppy and they were more than overdue for a loss.

We'll rap tomorrow night during/after game4.

 

[Rollie_Fingaz]

 

[KingTaharqa]

Spurs look soft so far tonight. OKC bigs, Perkins, Ibaka, and Collison outplaying Spurs bigs. The Spurs others of Green, Leonard, Diaw, Bonner have come back down to earth against the stiffer comp of the Thunder.

 

[smooveface]

Westbrook looks lost and is a turnover waiting to happen. I guess the fact that TP is getting the best of him is getting in his head. OKC looks better and more crisp with D-Fish's old ass out there running things.

 

[curryshotta]

Ibaka jumpshooting you can live with.

PErkins scoring points means you messed up. Pop gonna give em an earful

 

[D-TOWN REP]

these young boys just keep coming

 

[jasonblacc]

Time to put duncans ass at center start blair and kawai

 

[ukNoWwHo]

I think the series may be over if SA don't come back this game.

100% cosign

 

[D-TOWN REP]

Time to put duncans ass at center start blair and kawai

yep

duncan is still fighting it

you see KG gave in and look what it has done for him

 

[alexw]

perkins is balling out of control tonight

 

[ukNoWwHo]

Ibaka going Rondo on them niggaz

 

[jasonblacc]

yep

duncan is still fighting it

you see KG gave in and look what it has done for him

Makes no sense to fight it at this age.

 

[D-TOWN REP]

spurs better realize Ibaka can hit that jumper if they are just gonna leave him open

 

[ukNoWwHo]

I dont understand how Ginobli always goes to the same direction using the same move every time

 

[KingAddies]

Lol

 

[Complex]

Everytime Ginoboli makes a shot, Charles Barkley's voice pops in my head

This fourth should be good