The DRIVE for Five

The San Antonio Spurs lost to the LA because they were deeper, more experienced, more clutch, hungrier, and had better chemistry. The following Spurs season began with questions, uncertainty, and new players who had yet to learn Gregg Popovich's defensive schemes. As they had the season before, most of the media picked the Lakers to win and Spurs fans were left wondering just how much emotion to invest in a season that may end on the purple and yellow Staples center floor. In case you're wondering why this is written in the past tense - it's because I'm talking about October of 2002. Tim Duncan had completed a dominant series against LA, but lost in five games. Stephen Jackson sat on the bench with an injury, Antonio Daniels was on his way out of town, David Robinson announced he would retire after the next season, old players couldn't defend LA, and a rookie named Emanuel was coming to town.

One year later, tears would stream down the face of Derek Fisher as the Spurs finished LA with a 20+ point blowout in the Staples Center. I recall the '02-'03 season because many of the same questions are swirling around the NBA season preview shows today. Spurs fans have been more excited this summer than they have been in a while, but the question still remains. Can we beat the Lakers. A former Spur said it best on NBA TV last week: "Realistically...yes," and Brent Barry would know.

Between 2002 and 2003 we swapped a Terry Porter, Steve Smith, Danny Ferry, and Cherokee Parks lineup with one that featured Parker, Claxton, Stephen Jackson, and Kevin Willis. Older players who were a step slow defensively could not hit enough shots. I see no difference now. Instead of a 2008 lineup of Barry, Finley, Udoka, and Manu Ginobili's healthy left leg, we now have Mason, Richardson, Bogans, Hiarston, and Ginobili with Finley laying down cover-fire.

Simply put: not only can the Spurs beat LA, but it's realistic to think they will. Not to dwell on the past, but San Antonio could have won the series in 2008. Ginobili was not healthy, and Parker was inconsistent. If Manu is playing like himself, the Spurs are able to win as they did in Game 3 in '08. Ginobili's 30 point game was a blowout. It was also the only game Ginobili performed in the series. The Spurs lost to LA in 2008 because of rebounding and interior defense, and they have solved each of those problems. Blair, McDyess, Ratliff, and Mahinmi are tougher and more athletic than Thomas, Oberto, and Bonner.

As much as it pains me to say, the Spurs' hope rests on Tony Parker. In 2004, Parker ran circles around Gary Payton as the Spurs raced to A 2-0 series lead. Previously known for his defense, Payton watched from half court as Parker made layups. For some reason, Game 3 arrived, and so did Parker's love for the jump shot. Parker quit driving, and we all know how that series turned out. Parker and "Hedon't" Turkoglu are jsut as much to blame as Derek Fisher for the failed repeat attempt.

In 2008, the Spurs stormed to a 20 point lead in Game 1, in LA. Parker threw a fast breaking fiesta and dashed past Fisher and Farmar for three quarters. An avalanche of missed jumpers in the fourth allowed LA to mount an impressive comeback through momentum they would not relinquish that series. Had the Spurs won Game 1, the series would have been different.

With all other positions potentially canceling each other out, the Spurs own the point guard match-up (Bryan will have a slight edge on Jefferson even if his defense returns to '03 New Jersey levels & Manu will have a slight edge on Artest while the paint will be deadlocked). I know George Hill is up to the challenge, but can Parker stick with his strength even if it means abandoning the desire to make jumpers that he gained watching MJ win games growing up? Parker still has more potential than any PG in the league, and that's scary. If he can keep driving and leave the shooting to the shooters, then Brent Barry will prove correct: "the Spurs can go all the way."