After what seemed like 2 1/2 months off, the Spurs finally resumed playing in the NBA Playoffs. And by most accounts, picked up right where they left off.

The big topic of discussion was the “rust vs. rest” debate, a storyline that is brought out every time a team has an extended lay-off in the playoffs. In my thoughts over at The Big Fundamental’s series preview, I thought the expected rust of the Spurs and the fatigue of the Clippers would cancel each other out. For the most part, the game played out the way I thought: the Clippers were sharp early, the Spurs sloppy; the game was tight into the 3rd quarter when the Spurs opened it up, and held the Clippers at bay for an easy-but-not-as-easy-as-the-score-indicated win.

Since there is so much to suss out after the first game of a new series, let’s go to some bullet points.

What I Liked:

• Tim Duncan. Old reliable. Steady as she goes. It’s no mistake that every game of the post-season has started with the classic ’4-Down’, the dump into Duncan in the post and let him go to work. Pop watches his minutes closely all season for this very reason. Even at 36, the Spurs ability to win championships — not games, championships — still hinges on Duncan being great. Greatness doesn’t have to be defined by a 30-15 every night, though the occasional 26-10 sure is helpful. Even at 36, Duncan is still the smartest defender in the league, and still the anchor of the best offense in the league. As Barkley said in the post-game, this series will be a learning experience for Blake Griffin. Watch the master go to work.

• Boris Diaw. 12 rebounds. 5 assists. 3 steals. 1 block. Zero turnovers. Stellar defense and passing. We got him for nothing.

• Team defense. After giving up 29 in the first quarter, we surrendered 20, 23, and 20 in the following 3 quarters. That’s really good. I was particularly pleased with the defense on Chris Paul. The Clippers are deadly on the pick and roll, so what did we do? Didn’t even allow them to run it. I thought we’d let Chris Paul score at will and not allow anybody else to get off, but instead we just took the ball out of his hands, so he couldn’t be a scorer nor a passer. Want to shoot 20 foot jump shots Blake Griffin? Be our guest. Want to hold the ball for 12 seconds then shoot a contested 23 footer, Caron Butler? More power to you. Coming out of the half, Butler had a quick 10 points, but I was actually happy with the defense. He made 3 really tough shots. Sometimes that happens. For the most part, we were able to dictate exactly what we wanted the Clippers to do on offense. And we owned the boards.

• Our offense. A little sloppy and a bit rusty, but still a buzz saw.

• Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard. Not afraid of the big moment at all. Both are making solid contributions on both ends of the floor and impressing the hell out of me in these playoffs. Green was playing such good defense on Paul, I was actually relieved when he came back into the game in the 2nd half.

What I Didn’t Like:

• Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. This is where ‘rust’ might come into play. I thought we were a bit careless with the ball too much, giving the Clippers too many easy TOs into transition buckets. Hell, take away the Clippers 24 points off TOs, and we have an even bigger rout on our hands. This is something that I expect to go away, but we still need to be more careful with the ball. Credit the Clippers defense, though; they have some pesky defenders. Speaking of…

• Eric Bledsoe. Dear God, was he frightening in the second half. I thought he was going to bring LA back on his own. It seems like he stole the ball from us and then scored on the other end on like 8 straight possessions. Every time we turned it over, I heard the announcer say “Bledsoe with the steal”. Parker and Ginobili — world class ball handlers each — had trouble bringing the ball up and getting into the offense against him. Wow. He’s good. I fully expect him to be in the starting line-up soon. But that might actually work to our advantage, because…

• Tiago Splitter (and the bench). Splitter had a pretty rough game. Late in the first quarter he had two free throws to push our lead to 8 (I think). He missed both, even air balling the second one. Then he committed a bad foul at the other end…then had his inbound pass promptly stolen underneath the basket. Just a bad stretch. Splitter in particular, running the pick and roll, can kill the Clippers. We need him to step up.

The rest of the bench was okay, but got outplayed by the Clippers bench. (Note: I don’t necessarily consider Ginobili a ‘bench’ player.)

Tony Parker had a weird game, but I’m not going to put it in the “Didn’t Like” category. I actually was encouraged by it. He didn’t score (only one made basket), but still had 11 assists and was able to control the ball fairly well under the extreme pressure of Bledsoe. More importantly, I still felt his presence in the game, more so than Paul, who had a similarly bad night, but seemed even less able to leave an imprint on the game.

What a difference a year can make, eh? Had this game happened in last year’s playoffs (and I’m sure similar games did), we all would have been killing Parker. But with his superlative play all year, his growing leadership and confidence, and his ability to influence the game beyond his ability to score, we’re seeing a whole new Tony Parker. He’s no longer just the ‘quick, scoring point guard’. He’s an elite, unqualified point guard, probably one of the 2 or 3 best in the league. Furthermore, everybody sees the game as an aberration, and expects him to turn it around.

Of course, everybody expects the same of Chris Paul. Game 2s are often the most interesting in the series, as we see what adjustments are made both ways, and how the two teams settle into the series. Once you get to Game 3, the identities are generally set, and it’s all about execution and effort. But Game 2 can often be when the tone and timbre for the rest of the series are decided.

And we have the greatest conductor in the league on our side.

I think a win in Game 2 is critically important. No need to give even a glimmer of hope to the Clippers.

TOM REEL / San Antonio Express-News

After eight long days of waiting, the Spurs-Clippers series finally kicks off tonight. Here are previews of the series from around the league.

From NBA.com:

Few things about the No. 1 seed in the West could be more different than the Clippers, and not just in terms of franchise history. While the worn-out Clippers are facing their sixth game in 11 days, the Spurs haven’t played for eight days since sweeping Utah in the first round.

That the Spurs are not the most hobbled team in a playoff series is a refreshing change of pace for them. Winners of 14 in a row — one of the NBA’s six-longest winning streaks sustained in the playoffs since 1986 — the Spurs are not just well rested but also in unusually good health for this time of year.

Paul Forrester writes for Sports Illustrated:

The Spurs haven’t lost since April 11. They’ve won the 14 games they’ve played in that span by an average of 18 points. They’re the best-shooting team in the playoffs and have the stingiest field-goal defense.

Paul and Griffin (who is playing through a knee injury) are going to need a lot of help stopping a team as deep, savvy and rested as the Spurs. Of course, they did just take down a Grizzlies team that stunned San Antonio last year in the first round. But these Spurs are different, sleeker, based on an offense that can deliver from any spot on the floor — quickly. The Clippers did well to win a playoff series for the first time since 2006, but San Antonio is on a roll and has too much firepower. Spurs in four.

J. Michael Falgoust of USA Today asks, Do the Clippers have any shot vs. the Spurs?

The two best point guards in the NBA this season — the Spurs’ Tony Parker vs. the Clippers’ Chris Paul — highlight a series of dynamic backcourts with explosive scoring potential.

After winning four NBA championships from 1999-2007 with Tim Duncan in the post as the focal point of the offense, the Spurs now are led by Parker, who averaged a team-high 18.3 points — his highest output since 2008-09 — and a career-high 7.7 assists in his 11th season.

With Paul and Griffin ailing, the edge has to go to San Antonio, which won the season series 2-1. The Clippers won’t be able to pack it in against the Spurs as they did against the Grizzlies, who lacked the outside shooting to free up their post players.

That will leave room for Duncan in the low post. He might be old, but he can dominate in stretches better than anyone for Los Angeles.

Sean Deveney writes for the Sporting News (“Spurs-Clippers: Depth, shooting give San Antonio edge in Western Conference semifinal”):

The Clippers had to claw to get past the Grizzlies, and in doing so, some of their weaknesses were exposed. Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan make up the “Lob City” frontcourt, but defensively, Del Negro obviously is more comfortable with Evans and Martin, two weak offensive players (Evans actually played more minutes than Jordan in the first round). Griffin, of course, is an All-Star and a terrific offensive option, but Paul seems to be the only guy that Del Negro trusts on both ends. All of this means that the Clippers are not going to be too difficult for the Spurs to defend, and with San Antonio dropping 3s on the other end, this series probably won’t last long.

Broderick Turner writes for the Los Angeles Times (“Clippers vs. Spurs: How they match up”):

And the winner is… the Spurs in seven games. But I also picked Memphis to beat the Clippers in seven, too, and look where that got me – a trip to San Antonio. Oh, well.

It would seem now that the more likely of opponents is Memphis. Having survived Game 5 and 6, they now get the clinching game at home, with health and momentum on their side. The Clippers, by virtue of being banged up, now become the more ideal opponent for the second round, and the least likely. That’s the way the playoffs go, I suppose: you’re always going to end up playing the better team.

After watching good chunks of the last few games, the Clippers would most likely be the easier opponent. But there’s more poetic justice in facing the Grizzlies. We have a score to settle with them, a monkey to remove from a back, shadows of doubt to banish. We’re a different and a better team, and I want so badly to beat them 4 more times (to add to the 4 from the regular season).

It’s been interesting watching the games. The energy and effort level is so high, that it can be easy to mistake for high-level basketball as well. But I wonder if it really is? I wonder what either of these teams will look like against the buzz saw of the Spurs. What is going to happen when execution must catch up to effort and energy?

Game 7 tips off Sunday at noon Central time; by 3 or so we should know our next opponent.

Game 1 tips off Tuesday night at 7:30 Central time.

What say you guys? Who would you rather face in the second round?

“No need to rush.
Cutters are coming.
Screens are being set.
Pass is pinpoint perfect.
And somebody ends up wide open.
No flash.
No gimmicks.
No chance of stopping it.
It’s the quiet guys you should fear.
Because words are small.
And game is BIG.”

And like that, we’re into the second round.

Barring the last 5 minutes of the game, in which the Jazz made one last in-the-throes-of-defeat comeback, I was very impressed by what I saw in the series. I expected the series to go 5, the Spurs swept; I expected the Jazz to give the Spurs lots of trouble and play close games, and they really didn’t. For the most part, the Spurs dictated play on both ends of the court and were never in jeopardy of losing any game.

AP Photo/Colin E Braley

A few impressions as the team awaits the winner of the Grizzlies-Clippers series:

– We all know the bench is a major strength of the team, but my, oh my, was that evident in this series. The bench scored over 40 points in each game and thoroughly dominated the Jazz bench in each game. Game 4 was won in two big spurts by the bench, spanning the 1st and 2nd quarter and then again in the 3rd and 4th quarters, giving the team the working margin to withstand the Jazz comebacks. The Jazz started the game with the “Big” line-up, which helped the starters not get blown out…but it also weakened the bench, allowing the big runs. Conventional wisdom dictates that you can’t go 10 to 11 deep and win the championship…but the way this team is playing, it’d be silly not to go 10 deep at least.

– The offense is still humming along, but the defense is really impressing. Barring the first quarter of Game 3, over the last 7 quarters the Jazz have scored 143 points, or about 20 points per quarter. And that’s counting the big run the Jazz had to end the game. The rotations are strong, the close outs are good, and the rebounding is solid (though the numbers might not show it, given the great offensive rebounding the Jazz have). Let’s hope this continues.

– Speaking of defense, Duncan’s post defense against Jefferson was a work of art. We talk a lot about Ginobili’s injury last year against Memphis. But could Duncan playing at significantly less than 100% against Randolph and Gasol have also played a significant role? I love what Duncan is giving on both ends of the floor right now.

–

Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Melissa Majchrzak/NBAE via Getty Images)

– Manu Ginobili got his shooting stroke going in this game, which was nice to see. I’m still worried that we’re seeing a bit too much of “scary Ginboili”, and not enough of “scary good Ginobili”. I feel like he’s still pressing a bit too much. That being said, does anyone doubt that he’ll be there when we need him? Didn’t think so.

– Parker had a very poor game (for him), Ginobili had a good but not great game, ditto Duncan…and we were still ahead by 21 in the middle of the 4th quarter. That should be scary for the rest of the Western conference.

– I really like Utah’s team going forward. Especially Favors. He is frightening to go up against. If he can develop just a small post game, he’ll be a beast for years to come.

– The playoffs are a totally different animal, of course…but think about this: to beat a team in the playoffs, you must win 4 games against them. Including the playoffs, the Spurs have taken 32 games to lose 4, dating back to March 9th against the Clippers. In two months they’ve only lost 4 games, posting a gaudy 28-4 record. Two of those losses–March 9th against the Clippers, and April 9th against these same Jazz–didn’t include at least one of the Big 3 (Parker did not play against the Clippers, nobody played against the Jazz). So it’s taken 2 months to beat this team 4 times–and not always at full strength–and now a team has to do it in less than 2 weeks in a series. In 7 games.

– Clippers or Grizzlies…Clippers or Grizzlies…Clippers or Grizzlies…? At this point, I’m ready for either. Both present unique match-ups and problems, but I think both are imminently beatable. Especially if they continue to beat each other up in their first round series. For now, enjoy watching their series (hopefully) go long and enjoy the rest.

Go Spurs Go.

AP Photo/Colin E Braley

Tony Parker and the Spurs needed only 20 playoff games (16-4 record) to claim the franchise's fourth title in 2007. Parker, who averaged nearly 25 points and shot 57 percent in the Finals, would edge teammate Tim Duncan for MVP honors. Photo: Bob Rosato/SI

It might seem like a ridiculous question to ask. Of course sweeps matter, right?

Conventional wisdom has it that rest is paramount for older teams and older players. Pop has made resting his older players a science, and a source of frustration to fans and the league, during the regular season.

In the playoffs, the team doing the sweeping in the first round gets more rest, which gives them an advantage in the semifinals, which leads to more success in the conference finals and Finals, right?

But too much rest can be a problem, too. We’ve seen it before with the Spurs. A few days off the court and shots can get rusty, passes just a bit less accurate, the team out-of-sync on both ends of the court.

Not one of Yahoo’s five basketball analysts predicted the Spurs would sweep the Jazz in the first round. (Neither did I, but several fellow Spurs bloggers did, including Wayne and Bart of The Big Fundamental, Tim of 48 Minutes of Hell, and Tim of Pounding the Rock.)

And yet, the Spurs have won the first three games of the series by a combined 58 points, despite the fact that Manu Ginobili has scored only 17 points on 7-of-22 shooting. A sweep tonight seems imminent, if not simply likely, no matter what adjustments the Jazz make.

So my question is, despite what we think we know to be true about sweeps, and the additional rest that they produce, is sweeping opponents a predictor of success? In other words, do sweeps matter?

Since the 2002-2003 season, the year the NBA went from a best-of-5 to best-of-7 in the first round, the results are pretty clear.

In those nine seasons, in 135 series, only 22 (16%) resulted in a sweep. Of those, 13 were in the first round, 7 were in the semifinals, 1 was in the conference finals and 1 was in the Finals.

Among the 13 teams who swept their opponent in the first round, only 3 (23%) made it to the Finals.

Of the 20 teams who swept their opponent in the first or second round, just 6 (30%) made it to the Finals, and only 2 (10%) won the title.

Put another way, among the 18 teams in the Finals the last nine seasons, only 7 (39%) swept an opponent in any round.

Ok, but what about rest? Do teams in the Finals that have played fewer playoff games, i.e. had more rest, fare better than those who have played more?

Not necessarily.

In three seasons, both Finals teams played the same number of playoff games. (That was true in 2007, when the Spurs faced the Cavaliers and swept them.)

In the other six seasons, the results based on rest are split 50/50.

The Lakers in 2010 and 2009 and the Spurs in 2005 beat an opponent in the Finals who had played more playoff games.

The Celtics in 2008, the Pistons in 2004 and the Spurs in 2003 beat an opponent in the Finals who had played fewer games.

What holds true for the league holds true for the Spurs, as well.

They’ve only swept opponents in two seasons.

In 2004, the Spurs swept the Grizzlies in the first round, but were eliminated by the Lakers in the next round.

In 2007, the Spurs played 5-, 6- and 5-game series, to finally sweep the Cavaliers in the Finals, who had themselves swept the Wizards in the first round.

The Spurs beat the Pistons in 2005 after having played two fewer games to get to the Finals.

But lest that seem significant, the Spurs beat the Nets in 2003 despite having played four more games than that team in the first three rounds. The Spurs played 6-game series against the Suns, Lakers and Mavericks, while the Nets beat the Bucks in 6, then swept the Celtics and Pistons before losing to the Spurs in 6.

Bottom line? Sweeps don’t matter.

However, I still want to see the Spurs get the broom out tonight.

Coming into the series against the Jazz, Devin Harris was the player I feared the most.

Any Spurs fan should know why: The 2006 Western Conference SemiFinals, in which two 60-win teams (due to a seeding quirk later corrected) squared off in what Tim Duncan, Marc Stein, and myself still consider one of the greatest playoff series of all time, even despite it’s heartbreaking conclusion. (More than 2004 and 0.4, 2006 and the Ginobili foul haunt my dreams. That title was ours.)

In that series, one of the many turning points was the insertion of a young Devin Harris into the starting line-up for the Mavericks. For the remainder of the series, Harris tormented Parker on both offense and defense, looking like the better version of the young PG we had relied upon for so long. The conventional wisdom at the time became that Parker was a quick score-first PG that couldn’t really lead a team, could easily be defended and taken out of a game, and wasn’t a complete player. The future looked like it belonged to Harris.

What a difference half a decade can make. In 2012, Harris isn’t even mentioned in any PG conversations and has gotten eaten alive in the playoffs. Parker has made himself into a complete point guard and player, a multiple-time all-star, a periphery MVP candidate, a Finals MVP, and a lock for an all-NBA team.

What happened?

There are obviously a million different little things along each person’s journey that determine who it is they become. And after a Finals meltdown and an unceremonious 2007 exit from the playoffs (the very same playoffs Parker earned his Finals MVP), Harris was shipped off to the wasteland of New Jersey, before ending up in the never-mentioned Utah organization (though a fine organization, for sure). After that 2006 showcase, he just never seemed to take any further steps in his progression.

But I don’t want to make this about Harris. Because there are a million Devin Harris-es in the league. This is about Tony Parker and the Spurs.

One thing that the Spurs never get enough credit for (and they do get a lot of credit) is their player development. Yes, they have a knack for finding diamonds in the rough; but somebody has to smooth out those edges and make the diamonds shine. Every player in the NBA has loads and loads of talent; you don’t make it to the highest level of professional sports without it. The Spurs just have a way of getting the most and the best out of every player that comes through their organization. Tony Parker could very easily have just been another lightning quick PG who scores at the rim. But Pop and the Spurs harnessed that talent and turned him into an elite player. It wasn’t easy. And Pop was harder on Parker than perhaps he has been on any player ever. But the results speak for themselves.

And equal credit belongs to Parker, as well. Most 19-year old foreigners would have folded up tent and left for easier pastures after a few weeks with Pop’s abuse. But Parker–who never gets credit for his drive, competitiveness, and pure will, which is a natural byproduct of playing alongside Duncan and Ginobili his entire career–took it, always with that smile on his face. He learned, he got over himself, and he worked his ass off. Every year he improved, and he turned himself into what he is today: an elite PG running one of the best, most efficient offenses in recent NBA memory.

We always talk about the perfect marriage of Duncan and Pop; but the matrimony between Parker and the Spurs is no less wonderful or perfect.

Author’s note: The wonderful writers over at 48MoH obviously had the same inspiration I did. Check out their great article as well.

The Spurs had 53 at the half; the Jazz had 53 after 3 quarters.

That should tell you all you need to know about this game, as thorough a beat down as you’re bound to see in a playoff game. The Spurs controlled the game from the start, but used a 20-0 run at the end of the first half to blow it open, running even further away in the 3rd quarter.

My favorite part of the game was the play of Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard.

AP Photo/Eric Gay

After showing a bit of nerves in Game 1, both played superb Game 2s, scoring and defending extremely well. At the half the pair had 25 points; the Jazz had 28. More than their scoring, though, was their poise and their aggressiveness, both in taking (and making) big 3-pointers and driving aggressively to the rim. I hoped both would have a steep playoff learning curve; it seems as if that is true.

Along with Diaw’s continued stellar play, our starting line-up is pretty well fortified. In fact, the second unit struggled a bit in their stint in the 2nd quarter, and it wasn’t until the return of the starters that the game was blown open. Without Tiago, the second unit lacks the explosiveness and fear-instilling that we’ve come to expect. Hopefully Splitter will be back by Saturday and the DNP was more precautionary than anything else.

My only point of concern from this game was the play of Manu Ginobili. He seems a little wild even by his standards, and is trying to do too much and be a little too aggressive. Several times he made ill-advised passes and passed up open shots he should’ve taken. He did play great defense, but the team really needs him to be the de facto back-up PG to rest Parker, and right now he is playing a bit too careless with the ball.

I’m not really worried about him: he’s Manu Ginobili. But I suppose there should be at least one point of concern from a 31-point win.

Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photos by D. Clarke Evans/NBAE via Getty Images)

In a broader perspective, I’m glad the Spurs won so convincingly. There’s little doubt that they will win the series, but I think how they win the series will be just as telling. If the series goes any longer than 5 games, I think that’s a sign that the team isn’t quite as championship ready as we’d like to think. The way the team has been playing and clicking, this should be a 4 or 5 game series at the most.

Which makes Game 3 very interesting. If the Jazz are to win one game, it’s Game 3. Back at home, with the energy of the fans propelling them. Can the Spurs match their energy and take that game? If they just get the road split and wrap this series up at home in Game 5, that’s still impressive. The “Gentleman’s Sweep”, as they call it. But a win in Game 3 would be a statement that this team ain’t foolin’ around, and that they have their sights set on something much larger.

Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photos by D. Clarke Evans/NBAE via Getty Images)

KIN MAN HUI / SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

Congratulations to Coach Gregg Popovich for being named the 2011-2012 NBA Coach of the Year. It is a well-deserved honor for one of the greatest coaches of all time.

The NBA Coach of the Year Award is an interesting one, as it is often handed out to the coach of the team that has the most surprising year. And when a team has a surprising year, it’s usually because the expectations heading into the year were low. Those expectations are set by the media; the COY Award is voted on by the media. So prove the media wrong and you get an award.

Truthfully, the best coach is rarely honored with the award. How else to explain Pop only having won it once before, Jerry Sloan never having won it, and Phil Jackson having only won it once. It gets boring awarding the same people over and over, even if they are deserving.

So maybe what’s more interesting about Pop winning this award is that, with our aging core, the media is expecting the team to be less successful. And yet we’ve won the Western Conference consecutive years. So the narrative is starting to evolve, and Coach Pop is more and more getting lumped in with Duncan (and Ginobili and Parker, to a lesser extent). It’s no longer the Tim Duncan Era; it’s now the Duncan-Popovich era.

It’s fitting. While Pop always jokes about how lucky he was to have Duncan land in his lap (and he was), Duncan was equally lucky to find himself in San Antonio with such a great coach that fit him like a glove. Duncan is an immeasurably great player, without a doubt; but his sustained greatness and success is also given strength by the culture of the Spurs, the  continuity and systemic knowledge. That is a function of Pop.

The biggest winners here are Spurs fans. We may be the only fan base who gets to root for a coach as much as we root for our star players. Coach Pop has become the face of the franchise (despite his protestations to the contrary, I would imagine) as much as Duncan or Ginobili or Parker. And we get to go into every game and every playoff series knowing there is one match-up we will never lose.

Congratulations, Pop. And thank you.

The Spurs started the game sluggish and out of sorts, looking like the scared, untested playoff team.

Manu Ginobili missed an open-court fast break dunk…

The Jazz out rebounded us by 6…

The Jazz also had 8 more fast break points than us…

Leonard and Green were mostly invisible the entire game…

Splitter injured his wrist in the first half and never made it back into the game…

The Jazz got away with a few muggings at the rim that were not called fouls…

When we did finally get to the line, we missed 8 free throws…

For long stretches the team looked lifeless and non-dominant…

And the Jazz played about as well as they possibly could…

And we still won by 15.

Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

The Jazz are a very good team, and I was impressed with their energy, tenacity, and relative lack of ‘fear’ of the spotlight. But the Spurs have a LOT of room for error to still be able to easily win by double digits, whereas the Jazz have pretty much none. We didn’t really pull away until late in the 3rd/early in the 4th, but it never felt like the game was out of hand or that we wouldn’t win. Parker was a beast throughout, and Ginobili and Duncan were intermittently brilliant and a bit off their games. (Ginobili was a whirlwind of energy, playing as if he hadn’t played a playoff game in 4 years. He was seriously keyed up. As always, this led to some “bad” Ginobili. But the “good” Ginonbili so far outweighs it. And it’s awesome to see this Ginobili again.) Jackson provided a huge spark off the bench, Diaw had some nice moments, and everybody else was pretty much ordinary.

And we still won by 15.

As a side note, if you haven’t already been there, check out The Big Fundamental for a comprehensive playoff and series preview featuring SpursDynasty and several other great Spurs blogs. Well worth the read for any Spurs fan.