<< I will accept that Nellie would have to go if "the Ring" is the very last thing to achieve.
But is it? Are we not overboard judging about the talent of our team yet?
We haven´t won a Division nor Conference Title. We haven´t finished No. 1 in rankings. We have not crossed the .600 barrier.
If we´d dominate the league for years now but won´t get into the Conference Finals THEN you´ll have the right to complain, but we never ever showed WORTHY of beeing THE TEAM TO BEAT so far, so isn´t it homerism to complain about losing series in which we were the underdogs?
And Murph - until something big happens Nellie just has proven you wrong in your wish to get rid of him so far - at least till April. >>
This is certainly a valid point. The Mavs haven't been failing at the highest level for a number of years, as the Bills did in the early 90's in the NFL, for example. At the same time, however, when you look around at the rest of the NBA, there's no reason to think that the Mavs can't compete for a title this year. That being the case, I want the Mavs to be in the best position to win the title -- not 70 games in the regular season.
How long do you think Nellie should be given? Two years? Three? In three years, how old will Mike Finley be? In three years, how good will Steve Nash be? The man's 26 and already has persistent injury problems. My point here is that it seems that the Nellie defenders believe that we have a 5-7 year window to get things done. I don't know that that's the case. I think we can only be guaranteed 2-3 more years, and consequently I want Nellie to put up or shut up this postseason, and if he shuts up, I want someone else given the opportunity to take the Mavs to the next level.
|