Weekly Countdown (cont.)

4 questions rescued from the spam

Minus Manu Ginobili and a healthy Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and the Spurs found little room to operate against the Mavericks.

Ian Thomsen's Mailbag

Ian Thomsen will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag.

4. I have to qualify my statements with the fact that I am a Mavs fan. But I still do not understand your reasoning that a healthy Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili would have driven the Spurs past Dallas. Even without Ginobili for much of the season and with a hobbled Duncan, the Spurs won enough games to earn the No. 3 seed. Based on that logic, they should have at least had the capability to beat the No. 6 seed in the playoffs with the players they had. Look back to when these teams played each other in the playoffs and were healthy: The Mavs beat the Spurs on their home court with the same core group of players, albeit in a different year and with different role players. I don't agree with your statements implying it was a given that the healthy Spurs would have won the series, and also that nobody had any interest in this series besides fans of the teams.
-- Aaron K., Dallas

I understand why you cared about your series in Texas, and you should understand why the rest of the country didn't. At their best, the Spurs haven't drawn a large national audience (as proven by their low ratings in NBA Finals), and they became less intriguing when Ginobili's season-ending injury took them out of title contention.

The Mavs were deeper and far more promising three years ago, when they edged past San Antonio in the conference semifinals. I don't think I'm being reckless when I draw on years of accumulated evidence to say that if Ginobili, Duncan and Tony Parker were healthy, then the Spurs would be the No. 2 contender in the West. I credit the Mavericks for exploiting the Spurs' weaknesses (see below), but this simply was not a provocative series.

3. A 58-point loss in a playoff game? That's unreal. A coach needs to be held accountable for that -- no matter how banged up his team is. Is Byron Scott in trouble in New Orleans?
-- Mark, Oakland, Calif.

You're right, Mark. Everyone should be held responsible for such an embarrassing loss in a home playoff game.

But I remember last year when the Hornets were viewed as an overachieving team with a thin bench that had no business winning 56 games. The bottom line is that they need to have everything going for them to compete in the playoffs. The exquisite floor balance that made everything work last year was ruined this season by the injuries to Peja Stojakovic and Tyson Chandler, their only big man.

They looked exhausted and decrepit around Chris Paul and David West, and I don't know how they fix it this summer while shaving $8 million to avoid the luxury tax next season.

2. What should be the Blazers' top priority in the offseason?
-- Ryan, Fort Wayne, Ind.

They should seek an elite scorer at small forward or an elite point guard. I have no doubt they will offer anything and everything not named Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge or Greg Oden to New Orleans to see if they can pry away Paul. I doubt it will succeed, but in this summer of contraction, the Blazers shouldn't be shy about trying to rob any team in financial trouble.

1. I noticed that after Game 1 of the Celtics-Bulls series Doc Rivers was very feisty when asked about the game being a duel between Rajon Rondo and Derrick Rose. He dismissed the idea quickly, and made it clear that one-on-one play will not win the series. After Game 2, he described the duel between Ray Allen and Ben Gordon as "amazing." The difference? A Celtics win or loss. Do you think coaches really care how they win, as long as they win?
-- Sean Rutherford, Baltimore

Coaches who are trying to win a championship care how they win during the season and in the early rounds. During the season, you often hear Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich and Rivers complaining after victories if they think their team is playing to a style that will fail them during the NBA Finals in June.

Of course, that perspective changes in the latter games of a playoff series. In a Game 7, no coach will worry about style as long as his team survives.

I have a different take than you on Rivers' view of those two matchups. Allen and Gordon are finishers who are expected to score down the stretch, so a duel between them is commonplace and natural. But Rondo is a playmaker upon whom Rivers depends to create for his teammates. He's a young point guard and Rivers doesn't want to see him getting caught up in a personal duel with Rose when Rondo needs to be running the offense and spearheading the defense. I think that's why Rivers shot down talk of the Rondo-Rose matchup.

CONTINUE STORY