Suns fishing -- here's the bait
This is a repost from the ASFN board. I'm not interested in "revenge talk", although it's warranted, I'm curious to know whether you guys think this would have made a difference....
No ifs, ands or buts right?
Still, I can’t help but wonder…
Not what would have happened if STAT or Diaw played – Suns would have won – but if the Suns did as many on this board suggested they do after the MVP got sacked – respond in kind. I won’t beat the dead horse on the suspensions, but what about playing the Spurs like they played us?
After the “incident”, I remember Coach D saying something like “we’re not fighters…that’s not us”. Well, what if it had been?
Stern reiterated today his moronic stance that the bench rule will stay letter of law – if you’re not the Spurs, the Lakers or the Kings, that is (in which case 'the law' is open to interpretation). Can you win against the Spurs by “playing fair”? Moreover, is not “turnabout fair play?”, to quote the poet?
Here’s a post by someone named “misteradiant” from the phxsuns.net board:
“what the **** do we have a seven foot tall irishman for? his sense of humor?
i was wrong when i said we should obey the rules and play our game without taking anybody out. today, my opinion has changed. somebody wrote that we should have sent in a player like maurice lucas was sent in back in the day to **** somebody up. the pistons did it with lambier. we should have sent pat burke in the second and third periods to beat the **** out of somebody during game five in phoenix. we could have done it for six minutes defensively at the end of the second period of game five and then deliver a final series of offensive fouls in the the beginning of the third.
all the fouls would have taken place in front of the spurs bench. if a brawl isn't started, maybe a spur like duncan or bowen or ginobili would be out for the remainder of the game or better when we bring in kurt thomas as pat exits with six fouls. we should have done what the spurs were being allowed to do but to the extreme. if it is true what wilbon says, and the league/stern/jackson wants to "legislate against the most extreme action possible," let us exact upon our opponent that most extreme action. it was working for them, let's take it up a notch. i learned that lesson as a child and found it useful. all hell breaks loose sometimes, but you come out ahead in the end because you started it and you take a high-percentage gamble on what the outcome will be, taking into account past actions and their outcomes in the game.
we knew the rules (i.e.: how the game was being called) and didn't push them. champions are like patriots, they challenge the rules, they push them, they speak dissent and back it up. we were speaking it but not as a whole. nobody backed up amare and we lost the next game. we were pushed around and we didn't fight like we did last year when raja took kobe down and we came back from 3-1 to win the series. we should have sent in burke to take down bowen on an offensive charge that brought his knee to bowen's neck with a kick in the balls. we wouldn't need pat burke for the rest of the series but the spurs would need bowen or spidey the growling tigger.
if we played like that, we'd have the advantage in game six and we would have won that close game five at home, sending it home for a game tomorrow, regardless of what happened yesterday.
i feel like philip k. dick.
that should have been our team, wormwood. stern legislates as if every case is the extreme case as defined by the law. we should have provided the most extreme case. there was precedence that had we instigated a fight with another player in close proximity of the spurs bench, that as long as our team just stood there (like that pic of gino-billy with a look on his face as he stands next to raja and robert that only an aghast republican woman in her 70's could ape such as "oh my god, george bush was WRONG and HE LIED TO US!"), we'd have come out ahead.
like i learned in grade school, sometimes you have to pick the fight by pulling a pipe from the back of your pants to win a fight that is inevitably coming. it was that or get stabbed in the eye with a spoon. i had already been threatened by the spoon. i had to do something.
the suns needed to do something.
our guy who stared the fracas would be suspended a game or two. also suspended would be whomever threw a punch on the floor in defense of their teammate whom was just assaulted, in addition to whomever comes flying off the bench to assist their mate(s).
that is what we should have done. they could change the rule after we won. now they'll change the rule after the spurs (in our sides) win.”
Perhaps what the Suns need most is not another big man, but a big time bruiser.
I argued at the time that it was a matter of honor: that someone, anyone should have roughed up a Spurs big in the 5th. Needn't be an injury, just a statement. Instead, Suns insisted on playing it classy, now all the paper's are abuzz about Bowen's "great defense". Hey, if great defense is kicking, undercutting and slapping people's hands, then so be it. If being a "great team" is punking the MVP with .5 seconds left, then perhaps Suns SHOULD have sent Burke a case of Guiness before game 5 and throw down.
This isn't just bitter grapes and revenge fantasy, I honestly think Coach D should have given a nod and a wink to one or two of the bench players; you can't have Nash with bruises from head to foot and just keep hoping the Spurs will play fair and the refs call one/tenth of the fouls. They don't, and they didn't. That should have been obvious. They should have protected their MVP. You can't win a street fight with sweet talk.
This loss is the fault of the Suns and no one else. They were shown the rules -- anything goes -- and insisted on playing "fair". Next time, bring the pain. Bring in a hockey player if you have to.
NBA wanted a street fight, we wanted a clean game; it was obvious by game 3 which way the wind was blowing.
Last edited by barnabas : 05-23-2007 at 03:17 AM.