"Just wait until we 'gel'..." - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

LoveMyMavs14 · 01-18-2004, 01:15 AM

Well kids, is this it? Are we seeing a "GELLED", and successful, Mavs team, that has won three consecutive on the road, are doing it while allowing their ailing all-star point guard to rest up, against pretty good-to-mediocre teams that they had been losing all their games to, and are still 6-3 against the top teams in the West?

Discuss.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

dude1394 · 01-18-2004, 01:25 AM

I guess. It just seems like they read that dallasbasketball.com article about how they are coasting. The effort has certainly been there. But yeah, I do think I'm seeing some gelling. Oh man am I gelling.

Bayliss · 01-18-2004, 01:27 AM

They're gellin' like a felon. Want some melon?

Max Power · 01-18-2004, 01:29 AM

I think so - a little. But Howard's comeback from injury will take a couple of games to settle.

If the Mavs could only get 10 games without any injury (except Delk - his injury actually BENEFITTED the Mavs because Nellie quit trying to play him).

Nash13 · 01-18-2004, 01:31 AM

We still need a center or someone else that can play center. Too me, it just doesn't matter how much this team "gels" because it's meaningless in the playoffs without someone at the 5. It was a perfect situation for Mamadou to play, but he didn't.

Psychedelic Fuzz · 01-18-2004, 01:35 AM

I don't think it's official until we crack the top 4 in the conference and surpass one of the other elites, but that may not be too far off. We are two behind SA, 3 behind minny. Definitely encouraging that we are getting it together without having to make another trade.

Mavs Rule · 01-18-2004, 01:40 AM

I have been very impressed with the hard nosed play very late in close games to pull them out lately. But I will only consider that we have jelled when we start blowing out some teams on a consistent basis like we did last year.

Evilmav2 · 01-18-2004, 01:43 AM

We've looked pretty darned strong and fired up over the last couple of games, but let's just wait to hand out plaudits until we have seen all of our five big guns playing well alongside a strong bench unit centered around Big Shawn, Travis, Josh, and (hopefully) a healthy Ed Najera. I have a funny feeling that just such a rotation would be as dangerous a team as any NBA title contender would ever want to deal with, regardless of our seeding, come '03-'04 playoff time. That said, goodness help our disparate foes in '05, once the "Demon from Duncanville", Big Tag comes on board...

Psychedelic Fuzz · 01-18-2004, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Nash13
We still need a center or someone else that can play center. Too me, it just doesn't matter how much this team "gels" because it's meaningless in the playoffs without someone at the 5. It was a perfect situation for Mamadou to play, but he didn't.

and who did we have in the playoffs last year? Raef?! The thing that cost us a title last year was perimeter defense, not lack of a dominant big man.

I'd buy that argument if we weren't getting good minutes out of Bradley and Fortson.

LRB · 01-18-2004, 02:00 AM

We're definitely playing much better. However we still need to continue to improve. We've got a long ways to go to get to the level we need to be at for the playoffs.

Nash13 · 01-18-2004, 02:07 AM

It helps to have height. There were a couple of times in the WCF where Raef didn't do too bad of a job against Duncan. We didn't have a problem with not having a dominant big man since we had a decent rotation at the PF/C positions. Now we don't have that. Sure we could do that against Denver and New York, but against LA SAN and maybe SAC, we will need a couple more inches of height.

dude1394 · 01-18-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz

Quote:

Originally posted by: Nash13
We still need a center or someone else that can play center. Too me, it just doesn't matter how much this team "gels" because it's meaningless in the playoffs without someone at the 5. It was a perfect situation for Mamadou to play, but he didn't.

and who did we have in the playoffs last year? Raef?! The thing that cost us a title last year was perimeter defense, not lack of a dominant big man.

I'd buy that argument if we weren't getting good minutes out of Bradley and Fortson.

Yes we had raef. Who is a much better shot blocker than dirk/walker/jamison. Yea we had perimeter defensive issues as well, probalby because we had two pgs. That was resolved with the jamison deal. Now we have no shotblocker in there and it shows.

But we also were killed on the glass. That was also "helped" by the jamison deal.

My problem is not getting minutes out of bradley early, but who is the shotblocker late?

Nash13 · 01-18-2004, 02:19 AM

They only ended up with +7 in rebounding, so getting killed is kinda harsh. But Portland did show that this team needs more height. If we had more height, players like Patterson wouldn't get 10 boards(12 the game before tonight) against us.

dude1394 · 01-18-2004, 02:25 AM

Killed on the glass was referring to last year, not tonight. This year is much better. But even then without fortson's 6 rebounds in 16 minutes we would have been easily outrebounded by 10.

It would be interesting to see what the rebounding numbers are when the big 5 are on the floor. I would imagine it's become negative. I'll have to track it. Last night they did ok against denver 10-8. Badley outrebounded in the third when they didn't have jamison. Hmmmm...... I'll have to track it.

Epitome22 · 01-18-2004, 10:09 AM

On one hand I'm glad to see the Mavs finally string some wins together. But on the other, winning a few skin of the teethers, some in OT against minimal competition isn't really confidence boosting. The Mavs Point differential is still that of a 46-49 win team.

Quetzalcoatl · 01-18-2004, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB
We're definitely playing much better. However we still need to continue to improve. We've got a long ways to go to get to the level we need to be at for the playoffs.

Totally agree.

Hitman · 01-18-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Bayliss
They're gellin' like a felon. Want some melon?

I'm Gell-ing.

dude1394 · 01-18-2004, 11:29 AM

I'm Gell-ing, it's you I'm Tell-ing.

ShaggyDirk · 01-18-2004, 11:44 AM

n

Simon2 · 01-18-2004, 11:51 AM

Anyone see a lightbulb turn on in the players and the fans?

LoveMyMavs14 · 01-18-2004, 03:46 PM

ShaggyDirk, not intended to be a "knee jerk". Just an honest question. The guys, even when they were losing, appeared to have started to know each others tendencies, etc. It was a process, I was just asking if we were just about there. Obviously there will be room for improvement, a LOT of improvement, and we should be happy about that.

kg_veteran · 01-18-2004, 05:04 PM

The key positives I'm seeing (judge for yourself whether it's "gel-ling" or not):

1. Center play. It's amazing how much it helps just to play "dirty work" guys at the center spot on this team. Shawn brings shotblocking and makes life really difficult on opponents in the paint; Fort controls the glass and has shown a really nice ability to get open right underneath the hoop and contribute some easy points. He also gets to the line and converts, which is a nice plus. The benchmark for me is 30 minutes. If we're getting 30 minutes a night out of Fort and Shawn combined, we've got a really good chance of winning, IMO.

2. Walker is really starting to find his role on this team. Much of the negative talk early on about Walker was not centered around whether people liked him but rather around whether people believed he could accept a passing, rebounding, defending and occasional scoring role on this team. It appears that he has. He still has the ability to score, but his shot selection has been much better of late, and he's limiting his attempts to get teammates involved. I've said it several times here, but the benchmark for Walk is 13 FGA/game. If Walk shoots 13 FGA or less, we've got a really good chance of winning, because it means that he's likely to have a lot of boards and assists as well.

3. Dirk Nowitzki is starting to find a nice rhythm offensively. For much of the season we wondered if Dirk had "regressed" or if his ankles were going to prevent him from performing at his expected level offensively. That's no longer a concern in my mind. His shot is back, he doesn't look to have any physical limitations, and he's put together a nice stretch of play, with the promise of more as the season wears on.

4. A legitimate 8-9 man rotation. We all heard (or heard about) Nellie proclaiming on the radio last week that he didn't have any "dirty work" guys. A closed door meeting with Cuban later, it appears that he rediscovered the ones he had. Of course, getting Howard back helped, but the Mavs now have a solid 9 man rotation with the Big 5, Howard, Bradley, Fortson, and Best, and Daniels has proven that he can step in and contribute minutes when needed as well. A month, even two weeks ago, the Mavs wouldn't have had a chance in Portland without Steve Nash.

I'm not sure whether they've "gel-led" or not, but I'm excited about the signs I'm seeing.

DNNF · 01-18-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
The key positives I'm seeing (judge for yourself whether it's "gel-ling" or not):

1. Center play. It's amazing how much it helps just to play "dirty work" guys at the center spot on this team. Shawn brings shotblocking and makes life really difficult on opponents in the paint; Fort controls the glass and has shown a really nice ability to get open right underneath the hoop and contribute some easy points. He also gets to the line and converts, which is a nice plus. The benchmark for me is 30 minutes. If we're getting 30 minutes a night out of Fort and Shawn combined, we've got a really good chance of winning, IMO.

2. Walker is really starting to find his role on this team. Much of the negative talk early on about Walker was not centered around whether people liked him but rather around whether people believed he could accept a passing, rebounding, defending and occasional scoring role on this team. It appears that he has. He still has the ability to score, but his shot selection has been much better of late, and he's limiting his attempts to get teammates involved. I've said it several times here, but the benchmark for Walk is 13 FGA/game. If Walk shoots 13 FGA or less, we've got a really good chance of winning, because it means that he's likely to have a lot of boards and assists as well.

3. Dirk Nowitzki is starting to find a nice rhythm offensively. For much of the season we wondered if Dirk had "regressed" or if his ankles were going to prevent him from performing at his expected level offensively. That's no longer a concern in my mind. His shot is back, he doesn't look to have any physical limitations, and he's put together a nice stretch of play, with the promise of more as the season wears on.

4. A legitimate 8-9 man rotation. We all heard (or heard about) Nellie proclaiming on the radio last week that he didn't have any "dirty work" guys. A closed door meeting with Cuban later, it appears that he rediscovered the ones he had. Of course, getting Howard back helped, but the Mavs now have a solid 9 man rotation with the Big 5, Howard, Bradley, Fortson, and Best, and Daniels has proven that he can step in and contribute minutes when needed as well. A month, even two weeks ago, the Mavs wouldn't have had a chance in Portland without Steve Nash.

I'm not sure whether they've "gel-led" or not, but I'm excited about the signs I'm seeing.

I think the Center play has been helping this team out the most. It would put Dirk in the PF, his natural position, where he can excel. Wonder why didn't Nellie ever tried this in the beginning of the season?. Walker's shot selections although is getting better, but it could be alot better. If he's just concentrating on passing, rebounding, and defense, I think this team will be one of the team no one want to play against in the first round

LRB · 01-18-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

2. Walker is really starting to find his role on this team. Much of the negative talk early on about Walker was not centered around whether people liked him but rather around whether people believed he could accept a passing, rebounding, defending and occasional scoring role on this team. It appears that he has. He still has the ability to score, but his shot selection has been much better of late, and he's limiting his attempts to get teammates involved. I've said it several times here, but the benchmark for Walk is 13 FGA/game. If Walk shoots 13 FGA or less, we've got a really good chance of winning, because it means that he's likely to have a lot of boards and assists as well.

IF Walker and Nellie coudl just get it through their thick skulls that the less Walker shoots the better we are as a team. If we could get Walker to take 0 shots per game we might go undefeated the rest of the year. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Tarzan · 01-18-2004, 05:25 PM

Great post, KG_Veteran.

PS. I am gellin' too, baby!

MightyToine · 01-18-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB

Quote:

2. Walker is really starting to find his role on this team. Much of the negative talk early on about Walker was not centered around whether people liked him but rather around whether people believed he could accept a passing, rebounding, defending and occasional scoring role on this team. It appears that he has. He still has the ability to score, but his shot selection has been much better of late, and he's limiting his attempts to get teammates involved. I've said it several times here, but the benchmark for Walk is 13 FGA/game. If Walk shoots 13 FGA or less, we've got a really good chance of winning, because it means that he's likely to have a lot of boards and assists as well.

IF Walker and Nellie coudl just get it through their thick skulls that the less Walker shoots the better we are as a team. If we could get Walker to take 0 shots per game we might go undefeated the rest of the year. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

How bout this?

If Walker loves the three-ball so much, then have him take his 5-8 threes a game but no more shots(2 pt or 3 ) afterward.... He would've taken a total of 8 shots a game then. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

(Just kidding, by the way)