fatchubs Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Nope. They can have the same view as you but they can also have a different view. It's not like I'm the only one who has this view. Have a read.http://sports.yahoo....-064549161.htmlhttp://www.usatoday....game-6/2437133/ http://cdn1.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/15048221/20130618_ajl_ah6_266.0_standard_352.0.jpg If they still lost, then will review again what happened in the game and see what other decisions let Miami win. It will be other plays and other decisions. Pop's situation is unique. The Spurs aren't like other teams. This is an aging Spurs and being competitive maybe enough to keep the fans and management and the players happy. I hope that the Spurs can come back to the finals and dominate again. Even though I was rooting for the Warriors, I didn't blame them for losing to the Spurs because they never had the same chance to win the series. The series wasn't lost for just a few critical plays. Mismo ... read again my earlier post... The fact of the matter is there will be spurs fans that thinks like you and others will think otherwise. The point is, if both jepoy and i are actually spurs fans and we posted what we've posted as a reply to you, you would have still argued with us as what we've seen. In short, kahit na Spurs fans ang nagsabing sangayon sila sa desisyon ni Pop, kokontra ka pa rin kasi iba ang pananaw mo. Therefore what's the point in asking the opinion of the Spurs fan if you will insist your opinion is better just because the spurs fan has a different POV. You said that if they fouled and lost they can review again. In the actual scenario wherein they didn't lost ... can't they also review what went wrong and make the necessary adjustments in the future? Finally, panoorin mo ulit un play at sagutin mo ang tanong ko nga eto . "If you are suggesting the Spurs should have fouled, sino dapat at kailan?" Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Erratum... In the actual scenario wherein they didn't LOST ... Should be " in the actual scenario when they didn't foul and lost" Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
ppdd Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 'di na ako makikisawsaw dun sa debate. talo pa din naman e. =|right on bro! if SA can get AK47.. wow that would be a great addition to their lineup Quote Link to comment
friendly0603 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Mismo ... read again my earlier post... In short, kahit na Spurs fans ang nagsabing sangayon sila sa desisyon ni Pop, kokontra ka pa rin kasi iba ang pananaw mo.Therefore what's the point in asking the opinion of the Spurs fan if you will insist your opinion is better just because the spurs fan has a different POV.Not really. I'm just seeing which % of spurs fans agree with the coach or not. Binasa mo ba yung articles I posted? Did you read the comments?You said that if they fouled and lost they can review again. In the actual scenario wherein they didn't lost ... can't they also review what went wrong and make the necessary adjustments in the future? Huh? This is incoherent. It's the crucial mistakes that are being reviewed. If the mistakes didn't cost them the game, what is there to review. It's the mental mistakes at critical times. Finally, panoorin mo ulit un play at sagutin mo ang tanong ko nga eto . "If you are suggesting the Spurs should have fouled, sino dapat at kailan?" They didn't plan to foul. That is what was wrong. Read the quote below from the article. San Antonio could've tried to foul in an instant, giving Allen two free throws rather than the 3-pointer that forced overtime and will go down in Finals lore. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy."We don't," the coach said. Quote Link to comment
friendly0603 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Missed your erratum.... Ignore that line in my reply. I can't edit it. Yes, they can. Unlike Indiana who had the same situation the next game, they made the change right away (putting Hibbert in for defense and rebound). Now, when will that future be for The Spurs? Don't know. If Pop is the same, he may employ the same strategy. If they lose again, will you say that is the wrong strategy? If they win the next time, then he could be right. It's just a case of you win some, you lose some. That's assuming identical situations occur - high percentage shooter or clutch shooter (maybe with not so high percentage) and in the finals/playoffs at a critical game. Just imagine if the opponent missed twice, got both offensive rebounds and had a 3rd attempt at a 3pt shot to send the game to overtime. Vindication will only happen the next time if the stars align. Edited July 10, 2013 by friendly0603 Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Mr Friendly, If you just want to see which percentage of the fans agree or disagree with what transpired then why argue and challenge the opinion of others which is not the same as yours? Thus to me what you said vis-a-vis your actions only validates my belief that you're intent is really to find some spurs fans that shares the same POV with you. Again, given that you think the spurs should have fouled, can you please tell me who should they foul and at which particular point. I just want to see where you are coming from considering in hindsight, yes i do think that fouling and giving up the two points is the better option than having Allen sink the three and lose in OT. but POP had to decide base on the situation before the play happened. So put yourself in his shoe what play will you call? Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
friendly0603 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Mr Friendly, If you just want to see which percentage of the fans agree or disagree with what transpired then why argue and challenge the opinion of others which is not the same as yours? Thus to me what you said vis-a-vis your actions only validates my belief that you're intent is really to find some spurs fans that shares the same POV with you. Again, given that you think the spurs should have fouled, can you please tell me who should they foul and at which particular point. I just want to see where you are coming from considering in hindsight, yes i do think that fouling and giving up the two points is the better option than having Allen sink the three and lose in OT. but POP had to decide base on the situation before the play happened. So put yourself in his shoe what play will you call?I think it's a given for Miami fans to say that Pop made a coaching decision. It just didn't work. No right or wrong because the decision has basis but with an unfortunate end result. Because Miami won. That's why I challenged your opinions. Did my opinion invalidate yours? I want "to know" if there are actual Spurs fans who think that Pop lost this game and eventually the finals because of wrong decisions. Is it just my POV? If they consider Pop's decisions right and not subject to second-guessing, it's all right for me. I just want to know if they agree or not. The way other teams' fans criticize their own team. If all Spurs fans here are like you, then so be it. But they don't care because the final result won't be changed. But I still want to take this series/finals on it's own merits separate from the previous championships. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Because Pop won in the past, it makes it ok to lose this one. It's not just where I'm coming from, it's what others opinion as well. It's coming from the tape being ready before the game is over. Read again below: ========================================================================= San Antonio could've tried to foul in an instant, giving Allen two free throws rather than the 3-pointer that forced overtime and will go down in Finals lore. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy. "We don't," the coach said. from http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gregg-popovich-s-substitutions-open-to-second-guessing-after-spurs--game-6-loss-064549161.html=========================================================================It wasn't the strategy that Spurs employ. They never planned to do it vs Miami. This is the same coach that employed Hack a Shaq against Phoenix. The Spurs won that series. Fouling was smart back then but it's not the way they want to play now. For the Spurs players, what will you do if Miami gets an offensive rebound with under 10 seconds or 5 seconds? They were just hoping that Miami will miss or that their D would be enough to make them miss. Pop's plan is just defend and do not foul even if it's smarter to foul. It was his directive so he cannot fault his player for that. Did you read the comments from the links? Edited July 10, 2013 by friendly0603 Quote Link to comment
jepoyskieLOVEbianca Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I think it's a given for Miami fans to say that Pop made a coaching decision. It just didn't work. No right or wrong because the decision has basis but with an unfortunate end result. Because Miami won. That's why I challenged your opinions. Did my opinion invalidate yours? I want "to know" if there are actual Spurs fans who think that Pop lost this game and eventually the finals because of wrong decisions. Is it just my POV? If they consider Pop's decisions right and not subject to second-guessing, it's all right for me. I just want to know if they agree or not. The way other teams' fans criticize their own team. If all Spurs fans here are like you, then so be it. But they don't care because the final result won't be changed. But I still want to take this series/finals on it's own merits separate from the previous championships. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Because Pop won in the past, it makes it ok to lose this one. It's not just where I'm coming from, it's what others opinion as well. It's coming from the tape being ready before the game is over. Read again below: ========================================================================= San Antonio could've tried to foul in an instant, giving Allen two free throws rather than the 3-pointer that forced overtime and will go down in Finals lore. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy. "We don't," the coach said. from http://sports.yahoo....-064549161.html=========================================================================It wasn't the strategy that Spurs employ. They never planned to do it vs Miami. This is the same coach that employed Hack a Shaq against Phoenix. The Spurs won that series. Fouling was smart back then but it's not the way they want to play now. For the Spurs players, what will you do if Miami gets an offensive rebound with under 10 seconds or 5 seconds? They were just hoping that Miami will miss or that their D would be enough to make them miss. Pop's plan is just defend and do not foul even if it's smarter to foul. It was his directive so he cannot fault his player for that. Did you read the comments from the links? sir, you are not answering Fatchubs question... you're saying that it is a smarter decision to foul... kelan, saang part, at sino ang dapat i-foul sir??? gaya ulit ng sinabi ni Fatchubs, kung ang tinutukoy mo ay ang i-foul si Allen, kahit maisip ng SPurs players na i-foul sya, huli na sir, kasi split second nga lang yung pangyayari, at kung hahabulin pa nila na i-foul si Allen, they could have given Allen three freethrows or a 4-point play... simple lang naman yung sinasabi, nagtataka ko kung bakit napakahirap para sayo na maintindihan yun... ngayon kung ang gusto mo lang malaman eh kung sino-sino yung Spurs fans na pabor sa decision or hindi, eh di sna ganun mo binuo yung tanong mo... hindi kasi ganun yung pagkakatanong mo, sna pinasimple mo na lang, halimbawa "sino ang SPurs Fans dito na pabor sa decision ni Pop at sino ang hindi?" simple lang tanong, mas makukuha mo agad ang hinahanap mo, kung totoo man yung sinasabi mo na yan lang gusto mo malaman (as per your recent posts)... regardless kung anong team pa ang gusto namin ni Fatchubs, nagkataon lang kami yung nagsasabi nyan... dapat intindihin mo pa din yung idea na kahit gustuhin ng Spurs na mag-foul, eh alanganin talaga boss... dahil mabilis nga yung pangyayari, the mere fact na sinabi mo na madaming beses nagmintis ang Heat, it means nagiging effective yung honest D nila... Quote Link to comment
friendly0603 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) sir, you are not answering Fatchubs question...you're saying that it is a smarter decision to foul... kelan, saang part, at sino ang dapat i-foul sir???Naintindihan mo ba yung sagot ko? Binasa mo ba? gaya ulit ng sinabi ni Fatchubs, kung ang tinutukoy mo ay ang i-foul si Allen, kahit maisip ngSPurs players na i-foul sya, huli na sir, kasi split second nga lang yung pangyayari, at kung hahabulin panila na i-foul si Allen, they could have given Allen three freethrows or a 4-point play... simple lang namanyung sinasabi, nagtataka ko kung bakit napakahirap para sayo na maintindihan yun...Irregardless of what the situation was, hindi nila balak mag-foul. If the Spurs said, they wanted to foul pero walang chance.Tapos na ang usapan ang question to foul or not to foul. I asked - "why didn't they foul?". I didn't ask "if they had a chance to foul?". ngayon kung ang gusto mo lang malaman eh kung sino-sino yung Spurs fans na pabor sa decision or hindi,eh di sna ganun mo binuo yung tanong mo... hindi kasi ganun yung pagkakatanong mo, sna pinasimple mo na lang, halimbawa "sino ang SPurs Fans dito na pabor sa decision ni Pop at sino ang hindi?"simple lang tanong, mas makukuha mo agad ang hinahanap mo, kung totoo man yung sinasabi mo na yanRead from the start, I asked spurs fans and I didn't want to limit the discussion. There are many other opinions. I hope binasa yung mga links ko. Meron pa na dapat si Ginobili ang pinaupo, etc. regardless kung anong team pa ang gusto namin ni Fatchubs, nagkataon lang kami yung nagsasabi nyan...dapat intindihin mo pa din yung idea na kahit gustuhin ng Spurs na mag-foul, eh alanganin talaga boss...dahil mabilis nga yung pangyayari, the mere fact na sinabi mo na madaming beses nagmintis ang Heat,it means nagiging effective yung honest D nila...It was only effective for the first attempt. Iba naman ang gusto mag-foul pero hindi nagawa so honest D lang ang defense plan. You got to expect that you need to rebound as well. They failed to rebound in successive possessions.It also doesn't mean that putting Duncan in would mean that their defense wouldn't be able to defend the 3 on the first attempt.Kung si Bosh ang naging libre who hasn't been productive dahil kay Duncan, tapos na shoot nya yung 3. Sasabihin mo ba na dapat si Diaw ang bumantay? Ikaw ba kokontra at sasabihin mali ang decision ni Pop to stay with Duncan? Ako, hindi ko sasabihin yun. With the poor shooting of Bosh, the percentages/chances would be worse if Bosh put up the shot instead of Ray Allen. Edited July 11, 2013 by friendly0603 Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) For the record I am neither an Heat nor a Spurs fans ... I watched this series as a simple basketball / NBA fan thus I don't think I would have any bias. I think it's clear now ... your objective is really not know what the reaction of the spurs fans but rather to know specifically if there are spurs fans out there who share your POV that Pop made the wrong decision. In hindsight, it is easy to say "San Antonio could've tried to foul in an instant, giving Allen two free throws rather than the 3-pointer that forced overtime and will go down in Finals lore." then again as I asked you, if you were in Pop's position not knowing what will actually happen but only all the possibilities in mind, what would be your call? To foul or not? If you said to foul, who will you foul and in what particular situation? Remember when Pop decided not to foul, I believe what he was thinking that time is that the Heat will definitely go for a three pointer. So the decision was to defend the three without fouling. If the Heat take the shot in the last second then it will be at worst a tie otherwise they win. If the Heat took the shot with time remaining then the HEat will be force to foul (it is presumed they will get the rebound). Of course who could have thought Bosh will be getting the offensive board and Allen would have that split second moment free of anyone since Manu was down and Green was inside the paint battling for the boards. Given that NBA players is expected to have a high basketball IQ and is expected to decide what is best tingin ko tama pa rin hindi nag foul. See the play again, Allen was up in the air when TP got to him. All he can do is play honest D and challenge that shot. A foul would have given Allen 3 FT which is a higher percentage shot that having him drain that 3 pointer.Bottomline you know is that the SPurs did not lose because of Allen's 3 pointer as all it did was to tie the game. They still have a chance to win in OT but unfortunately they didn't. What happened is another story. Edited July 11, 2013 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
Labuyo Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 at least gumagalaw ang thread... carry on lang since maayos na diskusyon naman ang nagaganap. right on bro! if SA can get AK47.. wow that would be a great addition to their lineup pretty quiet on the FAgency front. siguro ang plano as useless is to reload with essentially the same team. slight bump si MB over neal. pero i do think we can still improve a bit sa ating fringe/role players. Quote Link to comment
jepoyskieLOVEbianca Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Naintindihan mo ba yung sagot ko? Binasa mo ba? Irregardless of what the situation was, hindi nila balak mag-foul. If the Spurs said, they wanted to foul pero walang chance.Tapos na ang usapan ang question to foul or not to foul. I asked - "why didn't they foul?". I didn't ask "if they had a chance to foul?". Read from the start, I asked spurs fans and I didn't want to limit the discussion. There are many other opinions. I hope binasa yung mga links ko. Meron pa na dapat si Ginobili ang pinaupo, etc. It was only effective for the first attempt. Iba naman ang gusto mag-foul pero hindi nagawa so honest D lang ang defense plan. You got to expect that you need to rebound as well. They failed to rebound in successive possessions.It also doesn't mean that putting Duncan in would mean that their defense wouldn't be able to defend the 3 on the first attempt.Kung si Bosh ang naging libre who hasn't been productive dahil kay Duncan, tapos na shoot nya yung 3. Sasabihin mo ba na dapat si Diaw ang bumantay? Ikaw ba kokontra at sasabihin mali ang decision ni Pop to stay with Duncan? Ako, hindi ko sasabihin yun. With the poor shooting of Bosh, the percentages/chances would be worse if Bosh put up the shot instead of Ray Allen. sir, medyo mahilig ka naman ata sa maling formulation ng tanong... as you've said kanina gusto mo malaman kung ilang percent ng Spursfans ang nag-iisip na mali ang decision ni Pop, pero hindi naman ganun ang dating ng tanong mo, kahit itanong mo pa sa ibang nakakabasa... ngayon naman ang tanong mo, sabi mo to ha "to foul or not to foul/" pero ang post mong tanong is "why didn't they foul?" sa tingin mo sir magkapareho ba ng concept yang dalawang tanong na yan???ang labo mo kasi magtanong, inconsistent yung tanong mo, para saan bakit paiba-iba ang concept ng tanong mo?? para lumusot??? kung ang tanong mo eh kung bakit hindi nila binalak mag-foul... eh mali na naman yung pagkakaformulate mo ng question... kasi ang tanong mo eh "why didn't they foul?" which is based on thingsna nangyari na... you're pertaining to a point that had just happened.... kung talagang ang gusto mong itanong eh kung bakit hindi nila binalakmag-foul, dapat ang sinabi mo eh "why fouling was never in their plans?" or pwede ding, "why they didn't even plan to foul?" ang problema, malinaw na malinaw ang tanong mo "why didn't they foul?" o "bakit hindi sila nag-foul?" uulitin ko, sa tanong na binuo mo, you are talking of what happened... pero pinipilit mo ngayon sabihin na ang question mo eh about sa plano nila, bakit hindi pinlano na mag-foul... so you're pertaining to the plan before the said play happened... before you argue, maybe you should check first your questions... Quote Link to comment
friendly0603 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) "why didn't they foul?" o "bakit hindi sila nag-foul?"Basahin mo yung questions dyan?http://offtherim.bangordailynews.com/2013/06/24/high-school/poor-basketball-decisions-not-the-heat-beat-the-spurs-in-nba-finals/ 3. Why didn't the Spurs foul.........?Hindi pa ba equal sa "why didn't they foul?" From another article - The foreign press was less interested in Duncan’s absence than why the Spurs didn’t foul intentionally on that critical possession, forcing the Heat to settle for two free throws instead of having an opportunity to tie the game with one shot. Edited July 11, 2013 by friendly0603 Quote Link to comment
alberto_ Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 you lose some, you win some. at the end of the day desisyon ng coaching staff kung ano ang nararapat gawin, on the part of the players, kung paano nila ieexecute ang mga plays.kung ako ang tatanungin bilang isang masugid na nanonood ng nba, dalawa lang ang options na natitira. dun ba ako sa diskarteng tabla-panalo or sa panalo-talo.syempre dun ako sa diskarteng tabla-panalo. Quote Link to comment
jepoyskieLOVEbianca Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Basahin mo yung questions dyan?http://offtherim.ban...-in-nba-finals/ 3. Why didn't the Spurs foul.........?Hindi pa ba equal sa "why didn't they foul?" From another article - The foreign press was less interested in Duncan’s absence than why the Spurs didn’t foul intentionally on that critical possession, forcing the Heat to settle for two free throws instead of having an opportunity to tie the game with one shot. ang layo naman ng reply mo sa comment ko, nililihis mo na naman kasi mali ka na... i'm not talking about any article na pinost ng ibang tao sir.... i'm talking about your first post in relation with your recent post... uulitin ko... ang sabi mo galing sayo tong tanong na to ha... "why they didn't plan to foul?" kasi nga sinabi ni Pop na hindi talaga plano mag-foul pero ang post mo dati "why didn't they foul? sir, concept pa lang magkaiba na... pero you're implying na pareho lang yan base sa mga sagot mo... the first question pertains to the plan even before the play happened... the second question pertains to the play after it happened... magkaiba sir... kaya please settle your mind first kung alin ba talaga ang tanong mo dun... kasi sa kakagawa mo ng palusot, iba-iba na yung lumalabas na tanong mo as compare sa initial post mo... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.