Spurs Insider Podcast, 2026-05-06 05:53:00
专栏作家迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger) 与随队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)、汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn) 共同探讨马刺队在西部半决赛第一场负于明尼苏达森林狼队的表现、维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 的发挥，以及球队如何在第二场比赛中重回正轨。
推荐阅读：
以下是播客的文字记录：
主持人：本期《马刺内幕》(Spurs Insider) 由乔治·埃斯科贝多 (George Escobedo) 律师事务所赞助播出。
[音乐]
迈克·芬格 (Mike Finger)：这里是来自德克萨斯州南部绝密地点高度安全网络的《马刺内幕》季后赛逆境版。我是迈克·芬格，和我在一起的依然是《圣安东尼奥新闻快报》的马刺随队记者杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald) 和汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)。几个月来，我们三个人一直在这个播客里讨论，说我们真的不知道。我们不知道这群年轻球员在面对一支经验丰富的季后赛球队时，在季后赛中会有什么反应。我们不知道当他们作为一个整体，第一次遇到前面提到的季后赛逆境时，会作何反应。我们只是——我们只是不知道马刺队将如何应对一个防守强度极大，且必须面对一位处于巅峰状态（哪怕只是部分巅峰状态）的超级巨星的系列赛。而现在，杰夫，我们知道了一些。问题是：马刺队对于在西部半决赛中0-1落后有应对方案吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳 (Jeff McDonald)：我是说，你打算让这期节目一上来就这么扫兴吗？
迈克·芬格：我没想——这取决于你。我只是提出了问题。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：嗯，你知道，你不想成为情绪的俘虏。我们坐在这里，距离第一场比赛结束其实才几个小时。感觉就像朱利安·尚帕尼 (Julian Champagnie) 投丢那个潜在绝杀球才过去15分钟。
迈克·芬格：距离我发稿确实才过去15分钟。距离尚帕尼投丢那一球稍微久一点。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：没错。所以，你不想成为情绪的俘虏，也不想陷入确认偏误。但是，没错，这就是我们之前讨论过的，一支缺乏经验的球队在季后赛中面对那些身经百战的对手时，过程会非常艰难。我昨晚的感受是，这两支球队都是非常出色的防守型球队，他们互相肉搏，让得分变得异常困难。因此，这个系列赛大多会是低分局，会是势均力敌的比赛。大多数比赛都会是104比102之类的。在季后赛这种级别的比赛中，每一件事、每一个细节都至关重要。你必须赢下每一个细微之处的争夺。所有的琐事都很关键。当你在季后赛遇到这种比赛时，你自然会更信任一支，比如说，连续两次打进西部决赛的球队，而不是一支从未有过这种经历、只打过首轮的球队。这就是我们昨晚看到的。我大概知道，如果比赛进入第四节决战，马刺就会有麻烦。果不其然，明尼苏达——你知道，昨晚那场比赛，整场都没有人领先达到两位数。森林狼在第四节取得了全场最大的领先优势，也就是领先9分。那一刻你会觉得，“好吧，他们来了，这支球队展现出了底蕴。”虽然马刺奋力反击，并在终场哨响前获得了获胜的机会。但一支球队知道如何通过执行力摆脱那种困境，因为他们在季后赛经历过；而另一支球队则必须学习，而且必须学得很快，才能在这个系列赛中生存下来。
迈克·芬格：汤姆，尽管杰夫说得很有道理——这对他来说挺罕见的——但这支从未有过这种经历的球队，虽然犯了很多错，虽然队内薪水最高的球员在当晚大部分时间都没有得分贡献，表现挣扎——也就是德阿伦·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox)；虽然他们的MVP候选人文班亚马没能投进三分，也没能提供真正的得分火力；虽然他们最好的防守者斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 职业生涯第二次在季后赛犯满离场——但他们距离尚帕尼投进那一球并反败为胜，其实也就差了一次轮转。那么，这件事有积极的一面吗？
汤姆·奥斯本 (Tom Orsborn)：伙计，回过头看，他们在最后三分钟做得非常好。最后三分钟落后9分，他们没有惊慌，而是一分一分地追。德文完成了一次发球抢断。你知道，如果他们能翻盘，那将载入马刺的史册。然后在防守端，德文和文班防守朱利叶斯·兰德尔 (Julius Randle) 防得很好。兰德尔投丢了一个17英尺的投篮，马刺抢到了篮板。这时候有个抉择：要不要叫暂停？米奇·约翰逊 (Mitch Johnson) 习惯于在那种情况下不叫暂停。他说，“跑起来，往前推。”他们犹豫了一下。文班在把球传回给哈珀之前也犹豫了一下。迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 在推进给尚帕尼这件事上做得很好。尚帕尼得到了一个很好的机会，一个侧步跳投，看起来球路很正。可惜，球砸在了篮筐前沿。所以……
迈克·芬格：他是马刺队史单赛季三分球命中纪录保持者，对吧？
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，是的。福克斯也指出了这一点。大家都觉得那一球没问题，那是一个很好的空位。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我喜欢你先找我听悲观的看法，然后转头找汤姆听乐观的。
迈克·芬格：我喜欢你觉得这一切都是预先安排好的，或者是我决定的。我用一个总括性的陈述开启播客，转向你询问观点，而你只是假设我想听负面的，因为你就是那样的人。但是，你知道，在NBA赛季中，我们都在展现真实的自我。我认为这不仅适用于场上的球员，也适用于报道这些赛事的衣着得体、博学睿智的绅士女士们。如果你倾向于悲观，季后赛会激发这一点；如果你倾向于乐观，季后赛也会激发这一点。所以，声明一下，我没有强迫杰夫变得消极，那是他自己的选择。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：是的，我没选，是生活强加给我的。但回到尚帕尼那一球。我想现在外面肯定有人在说米奇应该叫暂停。我们能终结这个话题吗？那太离谱了。
迈克·芬格：你们刷社交媒体刷得太多了，那太疯狂了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：实际情况是，如果你叫了暂停，你试图画个战术给，比如说尚帕尼，让他投一个空位三分。但这只会变得更难。这太荒谬了。当然应该直接推反击。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，正如米奇指出的，当时对方的防守有点乱。那是正确的做法，毫无疑问。马刺昨晚最不想做的就是在阵地战中去硬凿森林狼的防守。为什么要在那样的生死时刻自找麻烦呢？你只需推反击，希望能为球队历史上最好的三分射手找到一个大空位。结果他们确实找到了，他只是没投进。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：那纯粹是鸡蛋里挑骨头。如果你觉得那时候该叫暂停，你就是在找茬。那是昨晚所有讨论点中最不值一提的一个。
迈克·芬格：但这会牵扯到其他的讨论点，因为——再次声明，我完全没注意到这种批评，这让我大开眼界——因为你是说，我们应该叫个暂停，给福克斯或者文班亚马画个战术，而他们俩整晚都很难出手？他们整晚都在挣扎。那正是你在那种情况下想要的投篮：一个赢球的机会，以及你最好射手的一个大空位。总之，换个话题，为什么福克斯在组织进攻方面做得不够好？他有6次失误，其中几次，正如他赛后自己指出的，在快攻情况下是不可原谅的。他为什么表现不佳？以及，马刺为什么没能更好地利用他们那位身高7英尺4英寸的MVP候选人？文班亚马昨晚送出了12次盖帽，刷新了NBA季后赛纪录，在防守端简直是个怪兽，篮板也抢得好，但整晚只得到11分，投篮手感也很糟糕。这些问题有答案吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：盖帽比得分还多。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，他事后也说了，福克斯和文班的自我评估都很到位。福克斯承担了责任，文班则说他可能没有管理好体能。他昨晚在防守端全力以赴，放过任何一个盖帽的机会。也许在进攻端，他确实有点累了。我不知道。
迈克·芬格：你注意到卢克·科内特 (Luke Kornet) 打了多少分钟吗？
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，科内特顶了一会儿——8分钟。
迈克·芬格：你知道马刺派了多少人上场吗？9个，因为卡特·布莱恩特 (Carter Bryant) 打不了。如果你算一下数学题，你就会发现年轻的文班亚马打了40分钟，大概39分50秒。
汤姆·奥斯本：这数学水平相当高级。
迈克·芬格：这就是重点。文班打得太久了。也许他累了。他赛后提到，他当时觉得自己在比赛最后连续打了16分钟，这可能是真的。他说当时感觉大脑一片模糊，他认为这不太好，因为这意味着他在比赛结束时没能很好地掌控局势。把这些因素加在一起——他在场上承担的一切，不仅是每分钟的强度，还有累积的时间——他被寄予了太多。他没能展现出我们本赛季大部分时间习惯看到的进攻统治力。当他和福克斯都没有进攻威胁时，问题就接踵而至了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：不过，对他们两个来说，最大的问题是我们进入系列赛前就知道的：森林狼的身材和臂展。他们防守功底深厚。杰登·麦克丹尼尔斯 (Jaden McDaniels) 对位福克斯，这太难打了。福克斯很难绕过他，他们必须想办法解决。至于文班，马刺很难让他冲击篮筐。我说的不是在低位把球喂给他让他单打，我说的是他们在首轮和常规赛中经常用的那些配合：给他传空接，让他纵向冲击篮筐。但那些空接传不出来，因为森林狼的人长手长脚挡在路中间。传球的人看不到传球线路，或者空档根本就不存在。这些球通常是文班打出状态的关键，如果你能让他在篮下轻松得分。但昨晚文班在禁区的触球机会寥寥无几。解决办法之一就是投进该死的三分球，所有人都要投，尤其是文班。如果他能投进两三个，就能迫使对方防守做出调整，哪怕只是心理上的调整，禁区的压力可能就会缓解一点。如果你在寻找马刺第二场比赛的关键，那就是“把球投进”。这不是什么高深科学，出机会了就必须投进。
迈克·芬格：文班三分球8投0中，福克斯4投0中。两人合计12投0中。你可能不想——这是鸡生蛋还是蛋生鸡的问题——但你可能不想让文班投8个三分。问题是，当他投不进时，那些球反而是空位。所以，这引出了一个观点：一方面，有些简单的修正，正如杰夫所说，就是把球投进。但也必须注意，对方也有类似的解决方案，特别是当那位在最后时刻让马刺吃尽苦头的全能得分手（爱德华兹）还受到出场时间限制，且是在经历了一场看起来威胁到季后赛的伤病后打的第一场比赛。你必须预料到安东尼·爱德华兹 (Anthony Edwards) 会表现得更好，打得更久。所以，一种看法是，马刺浪费了一个在爱德华兹不在百分之百状态时击败森林狼的机会。而乐观的看法是，正如我们所说，这是这支马刺第一次面对这种情况。他们从未在季后赛中对阵过一支经验丰富、久经沙场的球队。你可以认为随着系列赛的进行，他们会变得更好，会学到一些东西。请讲，汤姆。
汤姆·奥斯本：有趣的是，如果尚帕尼投进了最后一个三分，今天的舆论就会是森林狼在最后几分钟是如何崩盘的。那支强大、老练、久经沙场的球队竟然彻底崩盘了。这真的是毫厘之差。
迈克·芬格：微小的毫厘之差。汤米，还有什么要补充的吗？
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，爱德华兹会变得越来越强。你知道，有两次连续的进攻，凯尔登·约翰逊 (Keldon Johnson) 在防他。凯尔登防得已经很到位了，但爱德华兹还是直接过掉他上篮。
迈克·芬格：那是典型的爱德华兹。凯尔登很努力，拼命在防，但爱德华兹就像把他放进了搅拌机。噢，天哪。然后还有赛后的言论。爱德华兹对凯尔登有很多话要说，凯尔登也回敬了不少。但想想看，那家伙之前甚至有缺席整个系列赛的风险，更不用说第一场了。他在第一场能有那样的终结表现，还能在凯尔登头上打出那样的集锦球，确实令人印象深刻。而且他是森林狼阵中众多愿意在防守端投入的人之一。这不仅仅是禁区里有多次年度最佳防守球员鲁迪·戈贝尔 (Rudy Gobert) 的问题，也不仅仅是精英防守者杰登·麦克丹尼尔斯防守福克斯、卡斯尔，甚至换防文班的问题。他们还有其他长手长脚、愿意卖力防守的球员。正如杰夫在系列赛开始前注意到的，这将是一场防守端的血战。我们在第一场已经见识到了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我总算说对了一件事。
迈克·芬格：你是对的。你这赛季已经对了好几次了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我这辈子才对了几次？
汤姆·奥斯本：值得注意的是，森林狼还没达到满血状态。阿约·多苏穆 (Ayo Dosunmu)——想再试着读一下吗？
迈克·芬格：多苏穆 (Dosunmu)。
汤姆·奥斯本：是的，他还在伤停。所以，马刺有的忙了。
迈克·芬格：一个真正的亮点是：当下半场局势变得棘手时，这支球队的稳定力量竟然是一个不仅只有20岁，而且还是来自罗格斯大学的新秀。有些球员进联盟前打过大场面，比如卡斯尔在康涅狄格大学赢过全国冠军。而迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 虽然极具天赋、出身名门，但你在大学里没见过他打这种大场面。罗格斯大学当时是一支输球的球队，没进NCAA锦标赛。但在首轮的波特兰，以及昨晚在圣安东尼奥对阵森林狼的第一场，在相当长的一段时间里，马刺表现最好的球员是哈珀。他在职业生涯第一个季后赛的表现真的让我印象深刻。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：他们最好的进攻球员。你说他是下半场的稳定力量，我觉得他上半场也是。在哈珀替补上场并快速得分之前，马刺打得非常挣扎。他似乎是唯一能冲击篮筐的人。我觉得马刺有些球员被禁区里的戈贝尔吓到了，到了禁区就折返。也许他们有理由尊重戈贝尔，但哈珀不在乎，伙计。他上场后就冲击篮筐并完成终结。我觉得至少在上半场，是他为马刺打开了局面。如果不是文班在上半场防守端的表现，以及哈珀在进攻端的发挥，马刺半场结束时可能已经落后两位数了。
迈克·芬格：是的。正如文班所说，如果一切都不同，那么一切都会不同。这话说得再好不过了。回到最初的观点：需要做出多大的改变？杰夫在节目开始时提到，在NBA季后赛中，每一件事都很重要，你必须把每件事都做对。我对此有一点异议，虽然那是你对待比赛的原则，但在马刺并非事事顺心的情况下，他们依然有机会。森林狼也会说同样的话，他们做得也不够好，但还是赢了。那么马刺需要多大的改变？他们需要多大的提升才能回到系列赛中，在第二场扳平比分，保住晋级希望？是大改，还是仅仅是细节上的修补？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：对我来说，最主要的是诊断出森林狼是如何防守文班的，并找到让他打出来的方法。因为他必须在进攻端有所作为，而不仅仅是提供牵制力。我知道牵制力也很重要，马刺得到的很多空位机会都是因为森林狼对文班的防守方式。但我认为，文班昨晚拿到了三双，但他差点因为得分不够没拿到。他在比赛还剩40秒时通过一个扣篮才得分上双。他不需要得40分，甚至不需要得30分。但他必须更多地参与进来——我不想听起来像是在指责文班——马刺必须找到一种组织方式，让他能更多地参与进攻，无论形式如何。福克斯也必须站出来，他不能表现得这么失常。他同样不需要得30分，但不能像昨晚这样。
迈克·芬格：在这个对决中，很难将其简化为一对一。森林狼有一对一防守高手，但并不是每一回合都是麦克丹尼尔斯防福克斯。他们在防守文班和福克斯时做得很好，不断变换防守策略。看看阵容，无论迈克·康利 (Mike Conley) 在防谁，马刺都需要更多地利用那个点。值得注意的是，德文·瓦塞尔 (Devin Vassell) 和尚帕尼在比赛早期做出了贡献，他们投进了一些三分。但杰夫是对的，必须让球星参与进来，这会产生连锁反应。部分原因在于要利用好罕见的对位优势。当文班没有被包夹、甚至三人包夹时，他需要更有侵略性。当福克斯面前不是麦克丹尼尔斯时，他需要打出侵略性。福克斯昨晚在更衣室里特别强调，这跟麦克丹尼尔斯无关，责任全在他自己。他说自己在快攻中传了愚蠢的球，这很难反驳；他说自己投丢了平时能进的球，这也很难反驳。我认为这就是福克斯的竞争天性，他认为只要自己打得更好就能解决问题，而不用担心麦克丹尼尔斯。但马刺需要在第二场看到这种改变。我知道格雷格·波波维奇 (Gregg Popovich) 的幽灵可能会因为我接下来的话而责备我，但这几乎感觉像是一场必须赢的比赛。主场作战的第二场。你不能带着0-2的比分去明尼苏达。虽然不到最后时刻没有真正的“生死战”，但如果马刺周三在弗罗斯特银行中心拿不下第二场，他们就会陷入大麻烦。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我本想在今天录音前查一下，但我不知道马刺过去几年在明尼苏达赢过几场。感觉并不多。所以，你已经必须去那里赢下一场来夺回主场优势了。如果你陷入0-2的绝境，还得去那里赢两场，那简直是难如登天。
汤姆·奥斯本：今年在那儿两场全输了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我只是凭感觉。我不记得在那座球馆报道过胜仗。
迈克·芬格：有一年——虽然无关紧要——就是他们为了文班“摆烂”的那年，当然他们不是故意的，他们去了那里并赢了球，那是他们火热开局的一部分，当时他们打了一系列比赛，赢球赢到手软。但那是很久以前的事了。另一种看待接下来几场比赛的方式是：你在第二场守住主场，然后在明尼苏达的两场比赛中赢下一场，你就重新掌握了主场优势。所以，这并非不可能，也没看起来那么令人生畏。你必须在这里赢一场，周三那场必须拿下。然后去明尼苏达拼下一场，你就重新掌控了局面。季后赛就是这样，当事情进展不顺时，大家就会过度分析、过度思考，感觉天都要塌了，但局势反转得也很快。这就是为什么我们整个赛季都在强调这支球队没有经验，因为季后赛就是这种感觉。当你连续投丢几个球时，感觉就像世界末日。你如何处理这种压力，决定了你在季后赛能走多远。这需要极大的心理韧性。并不是说马刺没有，但你必须随着时间的推移去培养。有人昨晚提到，这让他们走上了两年前俄克拉荷马城雷霆队走过的路。你打进了第二轮，之前没经历过这些，你必须学会如何应对。然后到了第二年，他们就成了冠军。马刺能加快这个进程吗？到目前为止，他们看起来确实比雷霆当年的进度要快。现在他们开始遇到雷霆两年前遇到的障碍了，我们拭目以待。不过现在才0-1，周三赛后再聊吧。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：你想周四早上再录一期播客吗？听众会喜欢的。
迈克·芬格：当然。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：但是，如果是带着1-1的比分回明尼苏达，那看起来还行。如果是0-2，那我们就真的要开始谈论雷霆当年的影子了。
迈克·芬格：汤姆，有什么办法能让气氛轻松点吗？
汤姆·奥斯本：我要让气氛更沉重一点。
迈克·芬格：好吧。
汤姆·奥斯本：森林狼的后场。我们谈到了哈珀，泰伦斯·香农 (Terence Shannon) 身上也有那种无畏。他8次走上罚球线，打得非常坚决。我想他赛后说了，他会继续冲击文班。
迈克·芬格：他不怕。是的，他一点都不怕。香农的原话大概是——我转述一下——“我会继续冲击，所以他必须封盖每一个球。”我想最后还加了一句“我要在他头上扣篮”。
汤姆·奥斯本：然后你还有老将迈克·康利 (Mike Conley)。谈谈稳定力量吧。三分球7投4中，6次助攻，0失误。我是说，他在联盟打了20年了吧？
迈克·芬格：他是那群老家伙之一。
汤姆·奥斯本：他就在那儿。所以，那个后场——马刺必须想办法让卡斯尔别再犯满离场了。虽然昨晚影响不是特别大，但你希望他在最后时刻留在场上。就像米奇说的，按照这个系列赛的强度，他肯定会背上四五个犯规。
迈克·芬格：因为他在场上的每一分钟都被安排去防守厉害的角色。而且是不同类型的厉害角色。他不能只研究透爱德华兹或者兰德尔就完事了。他要在兰德尔这样的壮汉、爱德华兹这样的顶级得分手、控卫、侧翼和内线之间轮转。昨天我还听到马刺内部的人说了另一件事——我以前从未听过这种说法——关于为什么森林狼对圣安东尼奥来说是一个如此艰难的对手，不仅是因为他们有大个子，而是因为他们有“多样性的大个子”。这很有道理。你想想：戈贝尔、兰德尔、纳兹·里德 (Naz Reid)，如果你甚至把麦克丹尼尔斯也算作大个子的话，他们都有长长的身材，但在功能和打法上却截然不同。你有里德这种空间型四号位，有兰德尔这种力量型内线，还有戈贝尔这种纯粹的护筐手。他们可以给你展示太多不同的面貌。我认为这就是马刺面临的问题所在：他们确实拥有世界上最好的大个子文班亚马，但在他身后，你只有一个稳健的替补中锋科内特和一群侧翼类型的球员。这是一个艰难的对决。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我们现在就把“世界第一大个子”的头衔给文班了吗？
迈克·芬格：你觉得他今年比约基奇更出色吗？你有MVP投票权。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：好吧。我不知道。我觉得这是两个不同的问题，但是……
迈克·芬格：他是今年世界上最好的大个子。你有异议吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我想我不会反驳这一点。
迈克·芬格：你的观点很有道理，尼古拉·约基奇赢得了这个时代世界第一大个子的称号。但今年，我认为MVP投票会显示文班更优秀。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我其实指的是俾斯麦·比永博，你居然把他忽略了。
迈克·芬格：好吧，底线是，播客的老朋友、ESPN的莱特昨晚经常说，“我告诉过你这会是一场极其艰难的比赛。”他是对的。ESPN的莱特是今年汤姆·奥斯本最坚定的支持者，每次在球馆见到我们，他都会特意称赞汤姆。而现在，汤姆竟然要在乔治·埃斯科贝多律师事务所赞助的《马刺内幕》播客上反手给他一记背刺。这不对，汤姆。
汤姆·奥斯本：不，你完全错了。那不是背刺。他说得对，他确实是对的。顺便说一下，这个播客的主持人是个煽风点火的人。昨晚很晚的时候，我正忙得不可开交，需要一份尚帕尼的采访记录，莱特就在那里。我问他，“能发给我吗？”他毫不犹豫就发了。他就是那样的人。
迈克·芬格：他喜欢维护你的宁静。我确实是个煽风点火的人。除了你们，我不想和任何人一起并肩作战。
汤姆·奥斯本：连我也不行？
迈克·芬格：除了你们两个，是的。我想作为一支团队，作为一个播客，我们也遇到了季后赛的瓶颈。我们正在产出各种内容。汤姆和杰夫每天多次更新 expressnews.com，填满所有栏目，写好所有标题，提供各种更新，关于西部半决赛你想知道的一切，我们都有报道。但我们很久没有在五月份干这种活了，自2019年以来就没有过。甚至比那更久，因为2019年马刺打掘金时我们也没撑到五月。这是一种心理挑战：你能否突破那个瓶颈，养成一套新的习惯？你必须找回那种节奏。我们会找到答案的。在我试图结束这期明显遇到瓶颈的播客时，还有什么遗言吗？
杰夫·麦克唐纳：临终遗言？
迈克·芬格：本期播客的最后陈述。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：我告诉你吧，如果我要死了，我的遗言肯定不会留在这个播客里，那是肯定的。
迈克·芬格：汤姆，在我结束前，给我们提提神。
汤姆·奥斯本：提神？好吧，生活很美好。你要去明尼苏达了。
杰夫·麦克唐纳：你就这点本事。趁我还在这一刻，尽量发光发热吧。
迈克·芬格：听起来不错。下次见，照顾好彼此，保持真实。
[音乐]
由生成式人工智能翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：San Antonio faces playoff pressure Down 1-0
San Antonio faces playoff pressure Down 1-0
Columnist Mike Finger and beat reporters Jeff McDonald and Tom Orsborn discuss the Spurs falling to Minnesota in Game 1 of the Western Conference Semifinals, the play of Victor Wembanyama and how the team can get back on track for Game 2.
Suggested reading:
Why Spurs don’t need ‘emergency alert’ after learning tough Game 1 lesson
Spurs vs. Timberwolves: Game 2 Keys to Victory
Spurs vs. Timberwolves: How to watch Game 2, who’s starting, who’s out
3 Takeaways as Spurs spoil Wembanyama’s record-setting night in Game 1
Why Spurs will live with Julian Champagnie taking potential game-winning shot
Here is the transcript of the podcast:
Announcer: This episode of Spurs Insider is brought to you by the Law Offices of George Escobedo.
[music]
Mike Finger: From a highly secure network of top-secret locations across South Texas, this is the Spurs Insider playoff adversity edition. I am Mike Finger, joined as always by San Antonio Express-News Spurs beat writers Jeff McDonald and Tom Orsborn. The three of us have been talking on this very podcast for months now about how we just didn’t know. We just didn’t know how the local cagers were going to react when it got to a playoff game against a playoff team that had been there before. We did not know how they were going to react when, for the first time as a group, they hit a little bit of that aforementioned playoff adversity. We just—we just didn’t know how the Spurs were going to handle a series where they were defended hard and had to go up against a true superstar at his best, even at a fraction of his best. And now, Jeff, we know a little bit. The question is: do the Spurs have an answer for being down 1-0 in the Western Conference Semifinals?
Jeff McDonald: I mean, you want this to start just as a total bummer? Is that what we’re doing today?
Mike Finger: I didn’t—that’s up to you. I asked the question.
Jeff McDonald: Well, you know, you don’t want to be a prisoner of the moment. Like, we’re sitting here really mere hours removed from the end of Game 1. Like, I think I think 15 minutes ago Julian Champagnie missed the potential game-winner there. I think it’s been like 15 minutes, it seems like.
Mike Finger: It’s been 15 minutes since I filed my column. It’s been a little bit longer since Julian Champagnie missed the shot.
Jeff McDonald: Exactly. So, you don’t want to be a prisoner of the moment. And you also don’t want to succumb to confirmation bias. But yes, this is what we were talking about when we said it’s hard for an inexperienced team to, you know, navigate the playoffs against teams that have been there and done that before. And I think my takeaway from last night is both of these teams are really great defensive teams, and they beat up on each other. They make it hard to score. And so, most of these are going to be low-scoring games. They’re going to be close games. Most games are going to be some version of 104 to 102. And in games like that in the playoffs, it’s every—everything matters. It’s just every—you have to win every battle around the margins. All the little things matter. And when you get into games like that in the playoffs, you just trust a team that, say, has been to two straight Western Conference Finals a little bit more than you trust a team that hasn’t done any of that before, that’s been in the first round. And so, that’s kind of what we saw last night. I kind of knew going down the stretch if this gets into a fourth-quarter game, the Spurs are in a little bit of trouble. And sure enough, Minnesota—you know, that game last night, nobody led by double digits the entire time. Minnesota took its largest—the largest lead either team had in the game in the fourth quarter by going up by nine points. And that was where you’re like, “Okay, here they go. This is the team doing it.” And lo and behold, the Spurs battled back and had a chance to win at the buzzer. But one team knows how to execute its way out of situations like that because they’ve been there before in the playoffs, and the other team is going to have to learn that and learn that pretty quickly to survive this series.
Mike Finger: And Tom, despite everything that Jeff said, which is all uncharacteristically valid, the team that hadn’t been there before, that did a lot of things wrong, that couldn’t get any scoring—anything—from its highest-paid player for a lot of the night, who really struggled, De’Aaron Fox, who couldn’t get any three-point shooting, any real scoring punch from its MVP candidate Victor Wembanyama, who had its best defender foul out for the second time in the playoffs in Stephon Castle—they were one rotation of a Julian Champagnie shot from winning anyway. So, is there an upside to this?
Tom Orsborn: Man, you know, you look back at it, they did so much right in those last three minutes. They’re down by nine with three; they didn’t panic. They chipped away at it. Devin gets the steal of the advance inbound pass. And you know, that would have gone down in Spurs lore if they had been able to pull it out. Then on the other end, Devin and Wemby defended Julius Randle well. He misses a 17-footer. They get the rebound. There is—and there is the decision: do you call timeout or not? Mitch Johnson, as he’s wont to do, you know, he doesn’t—he doesn’t do that in those situations usually. He said, “Go, push it up.” They hesitated a little bit. Wemby hesitated just a bit before he got the ball back to Harper. Harper did a good job pushing up to Julian. Julian gets a good look, a fly-by, step-side shot that, you know, it looked good. And unfortunately, it hit the front of the rim. So.
Mike Finger: The Spurs’ record holder for most three-pointers in a season, correct?
Tom Orsborn: Yes, yes. That’s what De’Aaron Fox pointed out. You know, it was every—everyone—no one had a problem with that shot. That was a good look.
Jeff McDonald: I like how you go to me for the glass-half-empty take and then you turn to Tom for the glass-half-full.
Mike Finger: I like how you think all this is predestined or preordained or is my decision. I opened the podcast with a general state of affairs, turned to you for your opinion, and I think that you just assumed that I wanted negativity because that’s who you are. But, you know, we’re all showing our true colors in the NBA season. I think that is accurate for the players on the court and the well-dressed, erudite gentlemen and ladies who are covering the affair. If you tend to be a glass-half-empty person, the playoffs will bring that out of you. If you’re glass-half-full, the playoffs will bring that out of you. So, let it be said that I did not make Jeff be negative. He chose that.
Jeff McDonald: Yeah, I didn’t choose it. It was foisted upon me by life. But going back to that last, you know, the Champagnie shot. Like, I guess there’s stuff out there about how Mitch should have called timeout. Can we put that to bed? Like, where is that?
Mike Finger: You guys are on social media too much. That’s insane.
Jeff McDonald: The way it worked out is, like, if you call timeout, you’re trying to draw up a play to get, you know, possibly Julian Champagnie an open three-pointer. Like, and it’s going to be harder. Like, it’s ridiculous. Like, of course you push that there.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, and they were, as Mitch pointed out, they were a little disorganized defensively. It was the right thing to do. There’s no question about that. You know, the last thing the Spurs had to do last night was try to execute against Minnesota’s defense in a set half-court. Why would you set up a situation with the game on the line to do that? You just push it and hope you can find a wide-open look for the best, you know, the top three-point shooter in franchise history. And lo and behold, they did. He just needed to make the shot.
Jeff McDonald: That’s just looking for something. If you think he should have called timeout there, you’re just looking for something. That was the least of all the talking points from last night. I think that was the least of the ones to focus on.
Mike Finger: It bleeds into other talking points, though, because—and again, I’m blissfully unaware of this criticism, which just blows my mind—because you’re telling me that you’re supposed to call timeout to draw up for a play for either De’Aaron Fox or Victor Wembanyama who couldn’t get a shot off all night? They struggled to get shots off all night. That’s exactly the shot you want in that situation. A chance to win it and a wide-open look for your best shooter. Anyway, transitioning from that, why didn’t De’Aaron Fox do a better job of not only initiating the offense—I think he had six turnovers, a couple of them, as he pointed out himself in the post-game, were inexcusable in fast-break situations. Why wasn’t he better? And why weren’t the Spurs ever able to take more advantage of their 7-foot-4 MVP candidate who set an NBA playoff record with 12 blocks and was a monster force on defense and rebounded, but managed only 11 points on the night and on a rough shooting night as well? Any answers to those questions?
Jeff McDonald: More blocks than points.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, and he said afterward, you know, it was a good self-assessment from both Fox and Wemby. Fox just shouldered the blame, and Wemby said maybe he mismanaged his energy. He’s trying—he went after everything last night defensively, every chance he had to try to get a block. And you know, maybe on the other end, he was just a tad tired. I don’t know.
Mike Finger: Did you notice how many minutes Luke Kornet played?
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, Luke Kornet filling in a bit—showed. Eight minutes.
Mike Finger: Do you know how many players the Spurs played? Nine, because Carter Bryant wasn’t available. And that, if you put some math together, that will lead you to believe that young Victor Wembanyama played 40 minutes, 39:50, something like that.
Tom Orsborn: That’s some class-A math there.
Mike Finger: That’s the difference between a class-A education and a class-5A education. Tom’s the class-5A education. No, Victor played a lot. Maybe he was tired. I think he pointed out after the game that he thought at the time that he played the last 16 minutes of the game, which may be true. He said it was kind of a blur, which wasn’t a good thing in his mind because that meant he didn’t have a good grasp of the game when it was over. And you throw all that together—all that was asked of him, not only in his minutes but the cumulative total of his minutes—a lot was asked of him. And he was not the offensive force that we were used to seeing from him for most of this season. And when he’s not the offensive force and De’Aaron Fox isn’t, that leads to some issues.
Jeff McDonald: Well, for both those guys, though, the biggest issue is what we all knew coming into this series, and it’s Minnesota’s size and length. They can just—and their defensive chops. Like with McDaniels on Fox, that’s just a tough matchup. That’s a tough matchup for De’Aaron to get around, and they’re going to have to figure that out. And with Victor, it was just hard for the Spurs to get him going anywhere towards the basket. I’m not talking about dump it to him in the post and post him up; I’m talking about a lot of these actions they had in the first round and throughout the regular season where they’re getting lobs to him and they’re getting him moving north-south towards the basket. A lot of those lobs aren’t there because there’s just arms and legs and of the Timberwolves just in the way because they’re so long and big. So, the guy trying to throw the lob can’t see it; the lob might not even be there in the first place. And those are the things that get Victor going a lot of times, if you can get him some easy ones at the bucket. But there just weren’t a lot of paint touches available for Victor Wembanyama last night. And one way around that is to make a freaking three-pointer, like anybody, but Victor especially. Like, if he hits two or three of those, then that kind of has to force a little bit of an adjustment for the defense, even if it’s just mental, and maybe some of that paint stuff loosens up a little bit. But if you’re looking for like a big key for the Spurs in Game 2, it’s like “make shots.” Like, it’s not rocket science. They’ve got to make those shots when they have them.
Mike Finger: Zero for eight for Victor Wembanyama from three-point range. Zero for four from Fox. That’s 0 for 12. You probably don’t—it’s chicken and egg, yes—but you probably don’t want Victor Wembanyama shooting eight three-pointers. The problem is, when he’s not making them, those are the shots that are open. And so, this leads into the idea that there are, on one hand, some simple fixes, to Jeff’s point: just make some shots. But it also should be noted that there are similar solutions on the other side, especially when the all-world dynamic scorer that kind of ate the Spurs’ lunch down the stretch was on a minutes restriction and was playing his first game since suffering what looked like an injury that put his whole postseason in peril. But you’ve got to figure that Anthony Edwards is going to get better and is going to play more. And so, there’s one way of looking at this as a game in which the Spurs wasted an opportunity to beat the T-Wolves while Anthony Edwards was not full strength. Then the glass-half-full is this was the first time that these Spurs ever have been in a situation like this, like we said. They’d never had to play a team in the playoffs that had been in the playoffs before and that was battle-tested. You think that they might get better as the series progresses, that they’re going to learn some things. Go ahead, Tom.
Tom Orsborn: Well, what’s funny about that is if Champagnie makes that last three, the narrative today is how bad Minnesota melted down in the last couple minutes. The big, experienced, battle-tested team just completely melted down. It’s a game of inches.
Mike Finger: Fractions of inches. Tommy, you have anything?
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, Edwards is going to be—he’s going to get better and better. You know, there were two back-to-back possessions where Keldon Johnson was on him. As good as Keldon Johnson can guard anyone, and he just drove right by him for layups.
Mike Finger: That was quintessential Anthony Edwards. Keldon was working, Keldon was trying, and he just had him in a blender. And just—just—oh, man. And then there was the talking afterwards. Anthony had plenty to say to Keldon, and Keldon had plenty to say to Anthony, but that is—to think that that guy was in danger of not playing this series, let alone Game 1, but people weren’t sure he’s going to play in this series. And to have a finish that he had with highlights like he had against Keldon Johnson on that play, that was impressive stuff. And he’s one of the guys who will—one of the many guys on that Minnesota team who will defend at the other end. It’s not just a matter of multiple-time Defensive Player of the Year Rudy Gobert in the middle. It’s not just a matter of elite defender Jaden McDaniels on De’Aaron Fox and Stephon Castle and even some time on Victor Wembanyama. They have other guys with long bodies and long arms and the willingness to get down there and defend people. And as Jeff noted heading into this series, this is going to be just a defensive bloodbath. And we saw a lot of that in Game 1.
Jeff McDonald: I was right about something.
Mike Finger: You were right. You’ve been right like a couple times this season.
Jeff McDonald: In my life?
Tom Orsborn: Should be noted that Minnesota’s still not at full strength. Iyo Dosunmu—want to try that again?
Mike Finger: Dosunmu.
Tom Orsborn: Yeah, he’s still sidelined. So yeah, it’s going to—Spurs got their hands full.
Mike Finger: One legitimate bright spot: the stabilizing force for the local cagers in the second half when things were getting hairy is the guy who’s not only a 20-year-old rookie, but a 20-year-old rookie who played at Rutgers and who didn’t experience the—well, I mean, some guys come to the league having played on huge stages before, like Stephon Castle won a national championship at UConn. Dylan Harper was a guy who with immense talent, good pedigree, but who you hadn’t seen on any kind of big-game stage before in college. That was a losing team at Rutgers; they did not make the NCAA Tournament. And in Portland, in the first round, and in San Antonio last night in Game 1 against the Minnesota Timberwolves, there were stretches, significant stretches, where the Spurs’ best player was Dylan Harper. I’ve really been impressed with the way that guy has looked in this first postseason.
Jeff McDonald: Their best offensive player. But you said he was a stabilizing force in the second half; I thought he was a stabilizing force in the first half, too. I think they—the Spurs were really struggling to do much of anything until that substitution when Dylan came in and he got them some quick buckets. He was the only guy who could seem to get to the rim. It seemed the Spurs were in the way that a lot of teams are freaked out by Victor in the middle and kind of reverse course when they get to the paint. I think there were certain Spurs that were doing that, giving Rudy Gobert that respect, and maybe for good reason. But Dylan Harper didn’t care, man. When he got in the game, he’s attacking downhill and finishing, and I think he was the guy, at least in the first half, that kind of loosened the lid for the Spurs a little bit. Like, they would have been—if it weren’t for what Victor was doing at the defensive end in the first half and Dylan Harper was doing at the offensive end in the first half, they might have been down double digits at halftime.
Mike Finger: Yeah. As Victor said, if everything was different, everything would have been different. Which is—you can’t put it any better than that. This gets back to the original point: how much does need to be different? Jeff pointed out in towards the opening of this podcast that in an NBA playoff game, everything matters and you have to do everything right. I quibble with that a little bit in that, yes, that’s the principle you take going into a game like that, but in a game when not everything went right for the Spurs, they still had a chance. The Minnesota will say the same thing, that they didn’t do a lot right and they still pulled it out. But how big of a change do the Spurs need? How big of an improvement do they need to get back into this series, to even it up in Game 2, to have a chance moving forward? Is it a major thing, or is it just the little stuff around the edges?
Jeff McDonald: The main thing to me would be to figure out and diagnose how Minnesota is guarding Victor and figuring out a way to get him going, because he’s got to be some kind of—I was going to say force—he’s got to participate on the offensive end in more than just gravity. I know that’s a big thing too, and I mean, a lot of those open looks the Spurs were getting were because of the way the Wolves were guarding Victor. But I just think, like, Victor Wembanyama had a triple-double last night and he almost didn’t get there because of points. Like, he got to double digits on points with 40 seconds to go in the game on a dunk. So, he just—he doesn’t have to score 40; he doesn’t even have to score 30, probably. But he’s got to be more participative—I don’t even want to make it sound like this is on Victor—like, the Spurs have to find a way to organize things where he can be more participatory on offense, whatever that looks like. And Fox has to show up, too. Like, he can’t lay an egg. He doesn’t—again, he doesn’t have to score 30, but he can’t lay an egg.
Mike Finger: It’s hard in this matchup, and most matchups, to break this down into one-on-ones. The Timberwolves are great one-on-one defenders, but it’s not like you talk about Jaden McDaniels on Fox. It wasn’t every possession, like it wasn’t all night where McDaniels is on Fox. They do a good job of mixing up looks for Victor, for Fox. Like, you look at the lineup and whoever Mike Conley is guarding, the Spurs need to take more advantage of that. And there were some good—it should be noted there were some good contributions from the Devin Vassells and Julian Champagnies early in the game; they were the couple that did hit some three-pointers. But Jeff’s right; there needs to be more of an effort to get the stars involved, which I think will have a trickle-down effect. And part of that is just taking advantage of the rare matchup edges when you have them. When Victor isn’t being double-teamed, triple-teamed, he needs to be aggressive. When De’Aaron Fox does not have Jaden McDaniels in front of him, he needs to get things going. And he made a point of saying in the locker room last night that this wasn’t a Jaden McDaniels thing, that it was all on him, that he made stupid passes in transition, which is hard to argue with; that he missed shots that he usually makes, which is hard to argue with. I think that’s the competitive nature of De’Aaron Fox, that he thinks that he can do this just by playing better himself and not worrying about Jaden McDaniels. But the Spurs need to see it, and they need to see it in Game 2 because I know the specter of Gregg Popovich is about to chastise me for saying this, but this almost feels like a game you have to have. Game 2 at home. You cannot go to Minnesota down 2-0. And, you know, no playoff game is a true must-win until you’re down to your last game, but this feels like if the Spurs don’t pull off Game 2 on Wednesday at the Frost Bank Center, that they’re going to be in some real trouble.
Jeff McDonald: I meant to look this up before we got together today, but I don’t know how many games the Spurs have won at Minnesota in the last several years. Like, it doesn’t seem like many. So, to go there—you already have to go there and win one to kind of get home-court advantage back. If you fall in an 0-2 hole and have to go there and win two, that just seems like a tall order.
Tom Orsborn: Lost both of them there this year.
Jeff McDonald: Like, I’m just going anecdotally. I can’t remember being in that building and covering a win.
Mike Finger: There was—yeah, it’s irrelevant, but there was that year when they were sort of tanking for Wemby, which of course they didn’t do on purpose, and they went there and that was part of their hot start where they played the baseball series and they were winning almost too much. But that’s a long, long time ago. The other way to look at these next few games, though, is you take care of business on your home floor in Game 2 and then you just win one of two in Minnesota and you have home-court advantage again. So, it’s not undoable. It’s not as daunting as it might appear. You’ve got to win one here; that Wednesday game, you’ve got to have it. And then you go up to Minnesota and get one of those two and you’re in control again. It’s crazy how much over-analysis, over-thinking—just everything is the end of the world when things don’t go well and how quickly it can flip in the playoffs. And that’s part of why we made such a big deal all season long of saying this team hadn’t experienced it before, because it is like that. It does feel like when you miss a few shots in a row that it’s the end of the world. And how you handle that is—it speaks to how well you do in the playoffs. It’s a lot of mental fortitude. And this isn’t to say the Spurs don’t have that, but you have to develop that over time. And you go back—somebody mentioned last night that this keeps them on the path of the Oklahoma City Thunder of two years ago, who were experiencing this two years ago. You get to the second round and you haven’t dealt with this before, and you’ve got to learn how to deal with this. And then by the next year, they’re champions. Now, can the Spurs speed that up? So far, they’ve looked like they’re speeding up the Oklahoma City timeline. Now they’re starting to hit what Oklahoma City hit two years ago, and we’ll see if they can—but it’s 1-0, though. Let’s talk again after Wednesday.
Jeff McDonald: Do you want to do another podcast on Thursday morning? The listeners would love it.
Mike Finger: Sure.
Jeff McDonald: But yeah, if it’s 1-1 going back to Minnesota, then you know, it looks okay. But if it’s 0-2, then we’re starting to, you know, shades of OKC.
Mike Finger: Tom, any way to brighten the mood?
Tom Orsborn: I’m going to bring it down still more.
Mike Finger: Okay.
Tom Orsborn: Minnesota’s backcourt. You know, we were talking about Harper. Terence Shannon has that fearlessness in him too. Got to the line eight times. He’s relentless. I think he said after the game that he’s going to keep going, going at Wemby.
Mike Finger: He ain’t scared. No, he ain’t scared. The quote from Shannon was basically—I’m paraphrasing—but “I’m going to keep coming, so he’s going to have to block every one.” And then I think there was a “I’m going to dunk on him” ending to that, too.
Tom Orsborn: And then you’ve got the old guy, Mike Conley. Talk about a steadying force. Four of seven from outside, six assists, no turnovers. I mean, what is he, 20 years in the league now?
Mike Finger: He’s one of the old fellows.
Tom Orsborn: He’s there. So, that backcourt—and they’ve got to find a way to get Castle, you know, from fouling out. I mean, it wasn’t a huge thing last night, but you want to have him down the stretch. And like Mitch said, the way things are programmed in this series, he’s going to get four or five fouls.
Mike Finger: Because every minute he’s on the floor, he’s assigned to somebody good. It’s different types of good players. It’s not like he can just figure out Anthony Edwards or just figure out Julius Randle and spend the whole game on them. He’s rotating through a big guy like Julius Randle, a dynamic scorer like Anthony Edwards. He’s on point guards, he’s on wings, he’s on post guys. Another thing that I heard yesterday from somebody with the Spurs—I’d never heard it put this way before—but getting into why the T-Wolves are such a tough matchup for San Antonio, it’s not just that they have bigs, but they have a diversity of bigs was the way it was put. And that makes a lot of sense because you think about it: Rudy Gobert, Julius Randle, Naz Reid, if you want to even throw in McDaniels as sort of a big, those are all long bodies, but they’re very different bodies in terms of what they do and how they play. You’ve got kind of a stretch-four in Naz Reid and a physical presence in Julius Randle and just that big shot-blocker in Rudy Gobert. It’s so many different looks that they can throw at you. And I think that’s part of what has given the Spurs problems in that they do have the best big man in the world in Victor Wembanyama, but behind that, you’ve got a solid backup center in Luke Kornet and a bunch of wing-type guys. And that’s a tough matchup.
Jeff McDonald: Are we giving Victor the “best big man in the world” mantle already?
Mike Finger: Do you think he was better than Jokić this year? You have an MVP vote.
Jeff McDonald: Okay. I don’t know. I think those are two different questions, but—
Mike Finger: He was the best big man in the world this year. Do you dispute that?
Jeff McDonald: I guess I won’t argue with that.
Mike Finger: Your point is well-taken that Nikola Jokić has earned the designation of best big man in the world in this era. But this year, I think the MVP votes will show that Victor was better.
Jeff McDonald: I was actually referring to Bismack Biyombo. You just dismissed him.
Mike Finger: Well, bottom line is, friend of the podcast, ESPN’s Michael C. Wright said often last night, “I told you it was going to be a tough, tough matchup.” He was right. Michael C. Wright of ESPN has been the biggest Tom Orsborn praiser of the year. He goes out of his way to compliment Tom Orsborn every night we see him at the arena. And now Tom Orsborn’s going to come on the Spurs Insider podcast presented by the Law Offices of George Escobedo and just kind of take a shot at the guy. That’s not right, Tom.
Tom Orsborn: No, you are totally wrong. That was not a shot. He said it; he was right. He was right. And by the way, the host of this podcast is a rabble-rouser. Late last night, I’m kind of jammed up, I needed a Julian Champagnie transcript, and Mike—Michael C. Wright was right there. I asked him, “Can you send it to me?” and without hesitation, he does it. That’s the kind of guy he is.
Mike Finger: He likes to keep your serenity intact. I am a rabble-rouser. No one else I would rather be in the trenches with.
Tom Orsborn: Not even me?
Mike Finger: Except for you two guys, yeah. We are hitting that playoff wall too, I think, as a group, as a podcast. We’re delivering all kinds of content. Tom Orsborn, Jeff McDonald updating expressnews.com multiple times per day, filling out all the fields, getting all the headlines written, all kinds of updates, everything you’d want to know about the Western Conference Semifinals. We’ve got it covered, but it’s something that we haven’t done this in May in a long time, since 2019. Even before that, because we didn’t make it to May in 2019 when the Spurs played the Nuggets. It’s a mental thing: can you break through that wall of learning a new set of habits? You’ve got to bring it all back. We’re going to find out. Any last words on this podcast as I hit the obvious wall trying to finish this up? Anything you’re looking for?
Jeff McDonald: The last words of the dying?
Mike Finger: The last words of this particular episode of the podcast.
Jeff McDonald: I’ll tell you what, if I’m dying, my last words aren’t going to be on this podcast, that’s for sure.
Mike Finger: Tom, bring us up before I finish.
Tom Orsborn: Bring us up? Well, life is good. You’re going to get to go to Minnesota.
Jeff McDonald: That’s all you got. Just a light as much as you can while I’m here at this moment.
Mike Finger: That sounds good. Until next time, take care of each other and keep it real.
[music]