Who wants to dogpile Nelson after a rare loss?

[MFFL]

<< At what point in Nelson's career did Nelson have one of the top 5 teams in the NBA, until now >>



91-92 Golden State 55 27 .671. Tied for 4th best record in the league - beaten 3-1 in the 1st round.

80-81 Milwaukee 60 22 .732. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-3 in the 2nd round (Milwaukee had a bye in the 1st round).

84-85 Milwaukee 59 23 .720. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-0 in the 2nd round.

85-86 Milwaukee 57 25 .695. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-0 in the Eastern Conference Finals.

[LRB]

<< If the Mavs win more home games than they lose in the second round this year, it seems that they would necessarily win that series, because they’re going to have homecourt advantage in the second round, barring a major collapse. Also, what teams do you consider to have superior talent? In my mind, only the Kings are more talented than the Mavericks, and that’s not a huge gap, even with Sacramento’s bench superiority. But they’re not going to meet Sacramento in the second round, since both are well on track to win their divisions. If they lose a competitive series to San Antonio in the second round, I’m not gonna be happy, because I don’t think they have more talent. >>



KG: I agree that the only team right now that is arguably better than the Mavs is the Kings. We still have more than half the season for players to develop, teams to coalese, and injuries to take place. We also have the trading deadline more than a month away and possible unsigned free agent aquisition. So can't say exactly what the talent will look like at the end of the year. But with the Mavs lead I expect them to win the Division regardless of other teams gains. Only major injury to Mavs do I see as reasonable excuse for not doing so.

And they can have home court advantage and still lose the series winning more than they lose. Example win 2 out of 3 at home. Lose 3 out of 3 on road.

Also, the Kings with the injuries that keep coming in might at some time seriously start to lose games and could finish out of 1st place in their division. Most likely the Mavs would have the #1 seed then. If SA finished ahead of Kings then Kings would have #4 seed and meet Mavs in 2nd round. Not likely, but possible. That's why I'm couching my answers, to protect against possible even though not probable events.

If things remain the way they are today with realtive strengths and records among teams, i would expect the Mavs to advance to the WCF and be very competitive there. I'm not holding my breath, because June is a long time away and I can't last for more than a minute or so. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[MFFL]

I forgot a few.

#81-82 Milwaukee 55 27 .671. 4th best record in the league, beaten 4-2 in the 2nd round (Milwaukee had a bye in the 1st round).

#82-83 Milwaukee 51 31 .622. 4th best record in the league, beaten 4-1 in the Eastern Conference Finals.

#83-84 Milwaukee 50 32 .610. 4th best record in the league, beaten 4-1 in the Eastern Conference Finals.

[dude1394]

<<

<< I see the Mavs with a Spur, King AND Lakers hurdle to get over before they win the championship. If the Mavs lose to superior teams, does that mean Nelson can't coach in the playoffs? >>



But what is Nellie doing to pass those teams? All of those teams are better defensively. All of those teams have go to players. All of those teams have effective half court sets. All of those teams play straight up basketball. All of those teams are better playoff teams.

We're not going to gimmick our way to a title. >>



The mavericks shoot better than all of those teams.
The mavericks have a certified stud in dirk nowitski.
The mavericks have a huge shote blocker in bradley.
The mavericks have the best fast break in basketball.
The mavericks have the best zone defense in basketball.
All of those teams HAVE been better playoff teams.
You are saying the current mavericks are winning with gimmicks. I respectfully disagree with that. This team right now is playing better defense than sacremento or la.

This team is still winning even though they are shooting horribly from the 3pt line, so there must be more there than just a 3pt team.

Just because things have always been done one way doesn't mean that there isn't another way to do it.

[dude1394]

<< And I think Nellie's system does get a lot out of the team -- during the regular season. But when playoff basketball rolls around, it honestly is a different game, and I think that the team should be doing things that prepare it to succeed in that arena, even if it is at the expense of a few regular season wins. The Mavericks might not should have beaten the Kings, but they shouldn't have lost 4-1. That's underachieving.
>>



You have to prove the &quot;different&quot; game to me... I've tried to find it, I've heard it but I can't quantify it. It can't be that the scoring goes down because it doesn't, at least not significantly, maybe 1-5 points per game, that doesn't seem significant to me.

The mavs weren't even close to the kings, dirk didn't step up, no bradley, no team chemistry. They just weren't ready. They didn't know how to stop anyone, no defense man..They were ONE of the top 4 teams in the league, the 4th and they had just arrived. They couldn't even hold off san antonio to get the midwest. They just weren't good enough and sacto was.

[dude1394]

<<

<< At what point in Nelson's career did Nelson have one of the top 5 teams in the NBA, until now >>



91-92 Golden State 55 27 .671. Tied for 4th best record in the league - beaten 3-1 in the 1st round.

80-81 Milwaukee 60 22 .732. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-3 in the 2nd round (Milwaukee had a bye in the 1st round).

84-85 Milwaukee 59 23 .720. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-0 in the 2nd round.

85-86 Milwaukee 57 25 .695. 3rd best record in the league, beaten 4-0 in the Eastern Conference Finals. >>



Who did they lost too and how dominant were those teams. I honestly do not remember nellie EVER having a certified superstar.

[MFFL]

<< The mavericks shoot better than all of those teams. >>



Open looks are a rarity in the playoffs



<< The mavericks have a certified stud in dirk nowitski. >>



Who is being severely underutilized. Where are the low post plays? Those are the bread and butter plays in the playoffs



<< The mavericks have a huge shote blocker in bradley. >>



Yep - I hope he stays out of foul trouble.



<< The mavericks have the best fast break in basketball. >>



Fast breaks are rarer than hen's teeth in the playoffs.



<< The mavericks have the best zone defense in basketball. >>



The zone can be busted rather easily IF you have a disciplined team. Look what the Spurs did to us.



<< All of those teams HAVE been better playoff teams. >>



And I hope the Mavs will be the better playoff team this year [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]



<< You are saying the current mavericks are winning with gimmicks. I respectfully disagree with that. This team right now is playing better defense than sacremento or la. >>



What is NVE/Nash if not a gimmick? Why do we still play small ball so much (although not as much as last year I'll grant you)?



<< This team is still winning even though they are shooting horribly from the 3pt line, so there must be more there than just a 3pt team. >>



I hope they are more than just a 3pt team because otherwise we'll get bombed in the playoffs.



<< Just because things have always been done one way doesn't mean that there isn't another way to do it. >>



I'm in total agreement with you. Just remember that only the successful explorers became famous. The rest were eaten by the bears.

[dude1394]

<< [i]

<< The mavericks shoot better than all of those teams. >>



Open looks are a rarity in the playoffs

Then why isn't the scoring 10 or 20% lower? I'm really serious about it. Sacto averaged about 5 points lower in the playoffs than in the regular season. I agree that teams are more intense but both offense and defense is more intense.

[LRB]

<< The zone can be busted rather easily IF you have a disciplined team. Look what the Spurs did to us. >>



And if the team playing defense just lost its best player to injury the previous night and is playing the 2nd game of a back-to-back and you are working in a couple of players who had missed double digit games, etc., etc.

One game does not show the zone defense can easily be busted. I've seen lots of great man to man defensive teams that have had off nights and been rung up for tons of points. Are you saying the Spurs suck as a defensive team and can be easily exploited because they get rung up one night? I think that the Spurs success had more to do with the implementation of the zone than the concept of the zone. Zone defense are new to the NBA. The Mavs have a really good set of zone defense that work great when the players implement them properly and we have adequate personnel to man the zone. You don't take out an Najera, Griffin, and your best rebounder in Dirk and not have some consequences. Especially when 2 of those guys are lost the night before without time to adjust. BTW if my memory serves correct the playoffs no longer have back to back games.

[kg_veteran]

Just because things have always been done one way doesn't mean that there isn't another way to do it.

Pardon me if I don't want the Mavericks to try and re-invent the wheel. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[seelenjaeger]

sometimes you have to discover the hidden but obvious wisdom in simplicity to get it done .. or, put another way, you don´t have to reinvent the wheel, it´s often enough to realize that you have to rely on one while travelling

[TwoDeep3]

However, taking into consideration what is required to retool a team in a cap situation...I'd say it's either reinvent the wheel or walk.

That was my point K_G.

From where the team stands there are any number of ways second guessing can be done.

But look who is doing the second guessing. People that have limited information and have never been involved in the league in any form.

That is not to take away this greatest of indoor spectator sports.

But the immediate 0-60 expectation posts about why aren't they winning it all is borne from lack of patience and hubris.

People have immediacy expectations when it may take a little longer than one suspects or desires.

And the basketball buzz-phrase posts meant to give insight are cioming from people that watch the game on TV or from the stands.

The complexity of running a lemonade stand are lost to those that choose to stand and drink without slicing a lemon.

[dude1394]

Amen brotha' twodeep!!

[Chiwas]

<< People have immediacy expectations when it may take a little longer than one suspects or desires. >>

Sorry, but I don´t agree on this. In fact, I think precisely the contrary. People lasts to much to change or create whatever perception (followed by a conclussion)you can name. Pace reigns here; everything is holded by its framed of reference. But this thought doesn´t invalidate your other ideas, of course (ironic: for the same reason!).

[MavKikiNYC]

2Deep:

The problem that your perspective poses is that the same caveats can be applied to many (most? all? ) of those observers who praise the job that Nelson has done. Is praise from an armchair booster any more valid than criticism?

And it's not just impatience and/or hubris that bears expectations and criticisms. I suspect that a lot of the observers who post here have been watching professional basketball for anywhere from 10-35 years....some perhaps longer. And even from an armchair, years worth of following the sport offers an appreciable degree of insights into what is likely to work and what isn't likely to work.

I read a lot of posts here that show a pretty refined level of basketball understanding, and I'm assuming that most of them don't have the benefit of having actually particpated in a professional context. While I don't agree with everything I read here, I do often learn things or look at things differently. And while probably no one here has as much experience with the complexities of managing a pro team as someone like...say Quinn Buckner, I wouldn't be that surprised if there weren't at least a couple of people here could match the job he did with the Mavericks.

It comes down to the fact that the game, for all intents and purposes, wouldn't exist without spectators. Pro sports is like a consumer good--people will have different thresholds of satisfaction, but as consumers they pretty much have the right to comment both positively and negatively on the product (or level of service, or entertainment) that they receive.

[TwoDeep3]

I am not suggesting comments shouldn't be offered. I even made reference to it in the post.

What I am saying is with years of watching the game you gain a certain amount of knowledge. Yet the knowledge you possess isn't in the same stratosphere as even the most inexperienced assistant on the bench.

There are issues you and I never hear about. Things the team keeps to themselves that come out later if at all. And this small amount of knowledge can hold the key to why they didn't pass the ball to Nowitzki late in the game. We just don't know or understand. Yet the coach receives our ire.

This is an example of what I mean by the hubris of knowledge. You made this statement. (By the way I am not taking a shot at you. Just using your words as an example)

&quot;And while probably no one here has as much experience with the complexities of managing a pro team as someone like...say Quinn Buckner, I wouldn't be that surprised if there weren't at least a couple of people here could match the job he did with the Mavericks.&quot;

The idea that a man that played division 1 college ball, on a pro team, then coached a pro team could be matched in gametime decisions by spectators that have viewed the team only is really out-of-proportion to reality for me.

There is so much more than X's and O's in this game.

TV is the Tree of Knowledge and we all sup at that tree. But just like the Biblical lore, we can't process the knowledge in a way that can make perfect sense. It is beyond our mortal mentality.

However you are correct that praising a coach is the same side of the coin as taking his game to task. But I just find people on a mesaageboard actually starting threads about wanting another coach when the one they have has the best record in basketball because they, the spectators have some special insight that allows them to see truth beyond the normal pail just a bit on the spoiled side.

The grass is always greener to all the fans but the ones of the team with the most recent Championship.

However, having said all this, I do it as well. So I stand convicted along with everyone else.

[MavKikiNYC]

<< And while probably no one here has as much experience with the complexities of managing a pro team as someone like...say Quinn Buckner, I wouldn't be that surprised if there weren't at least a couple of people here could match the job he did with the Mavericks.&quot; >>




<< The idea that a man that played division 1 college ball, on a pro team, then coached a pro team could be matched in gametime decisions by spectators that have viewed the team only is really out-of-proportion to reality for me. >>




Well, actually 2Deep, I was only half-serious there. But I WAS half-serious. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that even with the experience of having played on an NCAA champion, played in the league for 10-or-so years and then served as a commentator, Buckner's experience alone didn't give him any special coaching ability. To say that he coached that team is pretty generous on your part.

[dude1394]

A case for certain instances could objectively be made if someone took game film, analyzed situations, etc. What might be found is that steve didn't pass to dirk because someone was jumping the pass for example. Or that dirk actually had been given the ball on a few times down and the defense did something that left someone else wide open. Some objective items like that.

I meant to chronicle the touches that dirk got in the last 5 minutes of the new orleans game for example but my vcr went on the fritz. I'll try it once in the future.

[David]

I'm beginning to think that Nelson is a coach that gets his players to play hard in the regular season, most of the time. It's reflected in his team's regular season record.

Other coaches manage to get varying degrees of performance out of THEIR teams. This makes Nelson's team look better than they are, record-wise, and some of the other teams look WORSE than they are, record-wise. When the playoffs start, the other teams either step it up, or not, while Nelson's team is already pretty much maxing out.

I figure most of the coaching is pretty well even among the better teams, so Nelson has no advantage in the playoffs. The better teams, with better talent, pass Nelson's team in the playoffs, because they are simply better. Nelson has created unrealistic expectations due to an inflated regular season record. Talent wins out in the playoffs.

I'm thinking the Mavs are number 2, or number 3, in overall talent this year. Other teams have talent in areas that give the Mavs trouble. I think the Kings, and perhaps the Pacers, have better overall talent. The Lakers with Shaq and the Spurs with Duncan have talent in areas that the Mavs have no defensive answer for.

I, therefore, think Nelson loses in the playoffs because someone else has the better team. When Nelson gets the best talent, or even talent, his team should win. There ARE coaches that seem to have his number, as far as head to head matches go among seemingly even team. Popovich in San Antonio is one. Whether it's familiarity or not, I don't know. I think the talent between SA and the Mavs is fairly even. Duncan being the matchup problem but it looks like Dirk ought to be a problem for THEM too.

[Bayliss]

<< I, therefore, think Nelson loses in the playoffs because someone else has the better team. When Nelson gets the best talent, or even talent, his team should win. There ARE coaches that seem to have his number, as far as head to head matches go among seemingly even team. Popovich in San Antonio is one. Whether it's familiarity or not, I don't know. I think the talent between SA and the Mavs is fairly even. Duncan being the matchup problem but it looks like Dirk ought to be a problem for THEM too. >>



So if the Mavs truly do have the 2nd best talent, then they should make it to the WCF's.... correct David?

Anything less than making the WCF's this year is a failure.

And David, would you hold Nellie accoutable if they fail to reach the WCF's?

[TwoDeep3]

And if they ended up playing the best team in the first round and lost, would you give them a pass?

This is such a subjective question you ask leading to a conclusion you wish to make.

What if Dirk and Nash both went down to injury in warm-ups before the first game of the first round?

What if Donnie Nelson were killed in an automobile accident right after the second game of the second round of the play-offs and the team tanked?

You see how this gets to be absolutely ridiculous?

You want a results which is to hold Nelson accountable without any variables at all. You have an agenda which states simply you want someone else who will get results you don't feel Nelson has or will due to his coaching style.

The comment made in another post in this thread stating if the Mavs win it all there will be posters suggesting he can't do it back-to-back so he isn't worthy.

I suspect from reading your posts you would be one to do so, although that is my opinion based solely on my interpretation of your posts.

[David]

<<

<< I, therefore, think Nelson loses in the playoffs because someone else has the better team. When Nelson gets the best talent, or even talent, his team should win. There ARE coaches that seem to have his number, as far as head to head matches go among seemingly even team. Popovich in San Antonio is one. Whether it's familiarity or not, I don't know. I think the talent between SA and the Mavs is fairly even. Duncan being the matchup problem but it looks like Dirk ought to be a problem for THEM too. >>



So if the Mavs truly do have the 2nd best talent, then they should make it to the WCF's.... correct David?

Anything less than making the WCF's this year is a failure.

And David, would you hold Nellie accoutable if they fail to reach the WCF's? >>



I think it depends on the matchups. Who the Mavs play before they get to the WCF. Is there an injury to any of the Big Three, etc.

I don't know about, &quot;holding Nellie accountable&quot; because that is not my role in life to hold people accountable. I'm not going to like it WHEN the Mavs get knocked out of the playoffs. If I was Mark and it WAS my role in life to hold people accountable, I would give it serious consideration. It would depend on how things played out.

I might have to hold some of the players accountable unless it was simply cold-shooting or something. As long as the team plays hard and there is no problem with the defensive or offensive schemes, I would lean toward giving Nelson a chance to finish the job he started. Of course before this season, I didn't consider the Mavs to be contenders for the championship.

So far in my Mavs watching career, I've only seen the Mavs IN the WCFs one time. I was delighted that they were there but disappointed when they were beaten.

I expect the Mavs to win their first round matchup unless they play the Lakers or SA, then I would call that a toss-up.

In the 2nd round, the Lakers or SA could get in the way. To me, the Mavs haven't proved their superiority over those teams beyond a shadow of a doubt. They are a better overall team than those two but the matchups and the mental hurdles could get in the way. I won't like it if the Mavs lose to either of those two but I don't think I call publicly for Nelson's head.

Also, how do you tell when it's one coach's failure as opposed to another coach's success? Or when is it one team's failure as opposed to another team's success? If the Mavs lose, some people put it off on Nelson or a particular player, yet if the Mavs win, they give the credit to one, or some, of the players. If you go over to another teams board THEY are putting the blame/credit on their coach/player but give no blame/credit to the team that beat them.

If the Mavs win, some people aren't going to give Nelson credit. If the Mavs lose, then they want to hold Nelson &quot;accountable&quot;. It depends on viewpoint and agenda. On the other team's boards, the same thing is going on with their coaches and players.

[dude1394]

<<

<< I, therefore, think Nelson loses in the playoffs because someone else has the better team. When Nelson gets the best talent, or even talent, his team should win. There ARE coaches that seem to have his number, as far as head to head matches go among seemingly even team. Popovich in San Antonio is one. Whether it's familiarity or not, I don't know. I think the talent between SA and the Mavs is fairly even. Duncan being the matchup problem but it looks like Dirk ought to be a problem for THEM too. >>



So if the Mavs truly do have the 2nd best talent, then they should make it to the WCF's.... correct David?

Anything less than making the WCF's this year is a failure.

And David, would you hold Nellie accoutable if they fail to reach the WCF's? >>



NO... Not competing for the WCF would be a failure. For example if for some reason we met sac in the second series and didn't compete right down to the wire with them, that would be a failure. If we did compete right down to the wire with them and lost, that wouldn't be.

[Bayliss]

Well my hypothetical was in response to a healthy Mavericks team. I'm talking about full strength or relatively full strength.... TwoDeep, should the Mavs win in the 2nd round at full strength? That is not a hard question and don't make it harder than what it really is. I'm not talking about Maverick injuries etc. If the Mavs meet SA, Sacramento or the Lakers in the second round and are at full or near full strength, should they win?

I firmly believe they should. David, you keep saying that the Mavericks are 2_-5. Well with that record comes expectations. If the Mavericks finish with the 1st or 2nd best record in the league then they **should** make the WCFs. After all, their record says that they are the 1st or 2nd best team in their conference. Or are you telling me that their regular season doesn't mean much in the playoffs? Hmmm.... interesting.

[LRB]

I have a question for all you who want Nellie gone if he doesn't reach the WCF this year. Why don't you just add a small caveat saying unless it is for a good reason. What would be a good reason. Some that I could think of is we get beat by a better team. The Mavs are well coached, have great effort, and play well; but the other team is just plain better. We could debate back and forth endlessly how this is could possibly happen. This is still a subjective call, but not as much as when we have no clue who we will be playing. Another could be the officials just give them the series. I'm not talking about one or 2 calls against us. Rather if over a 5 game series we get an average of 15 net calls against us in 3 games is it fair to blame Nellie for this one. You can't control officials. They made some horrible calls today, but not anywhere close to a negative 15 net. That's like the Mavs getting tagged with 15 extra turnovers. Are we that much better than the Lakers if they start playing that we can overcome that? How about 20 net calls against us? You get the picture. Is this probable. No. Is it possible. Yes. What is some team just gets fantastically hot. We play great defense, don't allow any layups or inside shots and force them to take contested jumpers 85% of the time. They just keep making the contested jumpers. How is that Nellie's fault? Again most of my examples probably won't happen. But isn't it fair to say that Cubes should review Nellies performance at the end of the year and need to find a good reason why they didn't make the WCF to bring Nellie back if the Mavs do not indeed make the WCF?

[David]

<< Well my hypothetical was in response to a healthy Mavericks team. I'm talking about full strength or relatively full strength.... TwoDeep, should the Mavs win in the 2nd round at full strength? That is not a hard question and don't make it harder than what it really is. I'm not talking about Maverick injuries etc. If the Mavs meet SA, Sacramento or the Lakers in the second round and are at full or near full strength, should they win?

I firmly believe they should. David, you keep saying that the Mavericks are 2_-5. Well with that record comes expectations. If the Mavericks finish with the 1st or 2nd best record in the league then they **should** make the WCFs. After all, their record says that they are the 1st or 2nd best team in their conference. Or are you telling me that their regular season doesn't mean much in the playoffs? Hmmm.... interesting. >>



Well Bayliss, I'll say it again, it depends on who they meet. Sacramento, in my view, has better overall talent. I don't &quot;expect&quot; them to beat the Kings. The Mavs in the last few years haven't matched up with LA or SA, so I don't &quot;expect&quot; them to win. I expect them to play well right to the end, however. I don't have the power to hire and fire but I would be extremely disappointed WHEN they lose.

Then there is the Indiana scenario. In the first Indiana game this year, the Mavs got all their usual shots but they hit the front of the rim or were just off. The Mavs simply got beat. Everything seemed to be normal except the shots weren't falling.

In the 2nd Indiana game, the opposite was true. The Mavs were &quot;on&quot; and the Pacers were &quot;off&quot;. Should Nelson be held &quot;accountable&quot; for the loss in the first game? After all, the Mavs lost.

What happens if the Mavs play their usual game in a series and all the shots they get are contested and they don't shoot their usual percentage? What happens if the other team simply outplays the Mavs? Does the other team get credit for playing well or does Nelson only get negative credit for Mavs losses?

I guess the question I have is, if the Mavs lose, is it automatically a Nelson failure? Is there such a thing as the Mavs getting beat in a series by a team that suddenly plays up to their potential and have it be all glory to that team? Or is the only viewpoint to have, Mavs lose = Nelson failure? Other team wins = Nelson failure? Nothing else? Are there any circumstances where, all things being equal, that should the Mavs lose, that Nelson DOESN'T get the blame?

If a team has the best record, or second best record, in the regular season, are they the 1st or 2nd best team or did their coach do an excellent job getting them to play well enough to achieve that record?

At the end of the regular season, no team is awarded the NBA championship. All the regular season really does is decides whether or not a team is IN the playoffs, who plays who in the playoff games and where they play the games.

Some teams hold back, somewhat, and then play at a different level in the playoffs. That is one reason I wonder about &quot;expectations&quot;. I don't really know what expectations to have. I think, to win the championship, if a team is virtually assured of a playoff spot, that it might be better to use the regular season for making sure the team is healthy and hitting on all cylinders for the playoffs. That would mean losing a few regular season games that they wouldn't ordinarily lose while resting injuries or simply reducing minutes of stars. Or course with losses there would be &quot;blame&quot; for not winning games.

[Bayliss]

<< Well Bayliss, I'll say it again, it depends on who they meet. >>



David, thank you for once again dodging my question.

[Fidel]

<< What happens if the Mavs play their usual game in a series and all the shots they get are contested and they don't shoot their usual percentage? >>



David, the problem is right there. Jumpshots. IF the Mavs lose because they can´t make shots than a good share of the blame goes to Nellie. Why? Because he´s responsible for the way the team plays. People are griping about the lack of interior offense for a long time now. In some games we had allmost no inside firepower. We will never be a great team down low because we don´t have the players to be one. But that makes it even more important to work on that weakness while we can. That would be now, regular season. Play a little bit more halfcourt ball if the game lets you, post players up (Dirk), play big.

It should pay off in the playoffs to get better in those areas. Yet Nellie constantly refuses to do such kind of things. He´s stubborn. He wants to win his way. Works great...in the regular season. Doesn´t work as good in the playoffs, and not because the game is more intense or anything, that´s bull. It doesn´t work because you can´t have any letdowns in a 7 game series against Sac. If you´re relying on the outside shot too much and go cold, you´re down 0 - 2 against a team like Sac very quickly.

The way the Mavs play right now they are a streaky team, and that doesn´t work well in the playoffs. You have to have other ways to win if you can´t hit shots. Our improved defense is good step into that direction, now the offense should follow. People were asking why the Mavs can´t hold on to big leads sometimes. IMO it´s for the same reason. They rely on the jumpshot too much. If shots aren´t falling they can´t &quot;work&quot; their way to some cheap points, because they don´t have the tools and plays to do so (halfcourt offense).

Nellie should see that and work on it. But he does not. That´s why he will be held responsible if the Mavs expirience another early playoff exit.

[David]

<<

<< Well Bayliss, I'll say it again, it depends on who they meet. >>



David, thank you for once again dodging my question. >>



I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Does it have anything to do with your desire to hold Nelson responsible for everything, including the OTHER team's ability to play the game and your desire to only give Nelson blame but no credit?

[Bayliss]

<< I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Does it have anything to do with your desire to hold Nelson responsible for everything, including the OTHER team's ability to play the game and your desire to only give Nelson blame but no credit? >>



I'll give Nellie credit when he gets out of the second round.

I assume you will give him accountability if he doesn't get out of the second round?

[kg_veteran]

However, taking into consideration what is required to retool a team in a cap situation...I'd say it's either reinvent the wheel or walk.

Who says the Mavericks have to retool their team? They simply have to properly utilize the personnel they have.

That was my point K_G.

From where the team stands there are any number of ways second guessing can be done.

But look who is doing the second guessing. People that have limited information and have never been involved in the league in any form.

TwoDeep, you’re a smart guy, but this is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard. Are you honestly going to tell me I’m not allowed to criticize or second guess Nelson simply because I’ve never been involved in the NBA and I have “limited information”? Not only does that go against the whole idea of a message board (which I doubt is populated with many former or current NBA players, coaches, owners, etc.), but it also means that you also have no right to defend Nelson either. After all, you’ve never been involved in the NBA, and you and I have access to the exact same “information.” Plus, I hate the condescending tone here. Just because I haven’t played or coached in the NBA doesn’t mean I can’t comprehend the game and/or intelligently critique Nelson’s performance. If you want to disagree with my critique, that’s fine. You’ve been wrong before...

That is not to take away this greatest of indoor spectator sports.

But the immediate 0-60 expectation posts about why aren't they winning it all is borne from lack of patience and hubris.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but my expectations for the Mavericks (and for Nelson) are based upon my assessment of the team and how it compares to the other teams in the Western Conference, not lack of patience. What are your expectations of the team (and of Nelson)?

People have immediacy expectations when it may take a little longer than one suspects or desires.

So what are your expectations?

And the basketball buzz-phrase posts meant to give insight are coming from people that watch the game on TV or from the stands.

Last time I checked, that’s everybody on this message board. If you don’t think that fans should offer their opinions about the Mavericks, you’re on the wrong website.

The complexity of running a lemonade stand are lost to those that choose to stand and drink without slicing a lemon.

I see, so we should slice a lemon, or by analogy, get involved in the coaching of the Mavericks before we comment on how the team is being coached? Again, ridiculous logic that goes against the very idea of a message board.

[David]

<<

<< What happens if the Mavs play their usual game in a series and all the shots they get are contested and they don't shoot their usual percentage? >>

>>





<< David, the problem is right there. Jumpshots. IF the Mavs lose because they can´t make shots than a good share of the blame goes to Nellie. Why? Because he´s responsible for the way the team plays. People are griping about the lack of interior offense for a long time now. In some games we had allmost no inside firepower. We will never be a great team down low because we don´t have the players to be one. But that makes it even more important to work on that weakness while we can. That would be now, regular season. Play a little bit more halfcourt ball if the game lets you, post players up (Dirk), play big. >>



You seem to want to blame Nelson if the shots aren't falling. These opponents are NBA teams, with NBA players. In the playoffs, the non-playoff teams are eliminated. In theory, the best NBA teams are playing. Are these other teams playing any defense? If the other team out-plays the Mavs do they get credit for that or is it the only way the Mavs can lose is if the Mavs(read Nelson)fail?



<< It should pay off in the playoffs to get better in those areas. Yet Nellie constantly refuses to do such kind of things. He´s stubborn. He wants to win his way. Works great...in the regular season. Doesn´t work as good in the playoffs, and not because the game is more intense or anything, that´s bull. It doesn´t work because you can´t have any letdowns in a 7 game series against Sac. If you´re relying on the outside shot too much and go cold, you´re down 0 - 2 against a team like Sac very quickly. >>



The Mavs hired Nelson to coach his way. If Mark doesn't like the job Nelson is doing, he ought to fire him. If he doesn't fire him, he ought to get out of the way and let him coach HIS way. The regular season record says Nelson is doing better than any team in the league. Not to say the Mavs have the best team, just the best regular season record.

NBA history shows that teams rarely win the whole thing the first time they make the playoffs. It seems that the teams tend to have teams that get in their way and then a team either overcomes the teams they need to hurdle or they go back in the pack.

Detroit had to get over the Celtics, the Bulls had to get over the BadBoys, etc. Sacramento had the best team in the NBA last year, IMO, but THEIR hurdle in the playoffs is the Lakers. Did the Kings coach fail because the Kings choked and hit only 50% of their free throws and lost game 7 to the Lakers?



<< The way the Mavs play right now they are a streaky team, and that doesn´t work well in the playoffs. You have to have other ways to win if you can´t hit shots. Our improved defense is good step into that direction, now the offense should follow. People were asking why the Mavs can´t hold on to big leads sometimes. IMO it´s for the same reason. They rely on the jumpshot too much. If shots aren´t falling they can´t &quot;work&quot; their way to some cheap points, because they don´t have the tools and plays to do so (halfcourt offense). >>



An inside player would be nice and the whys and wherefores were discussed in the off-season about who could be acquired and who's minutes they would take. Most of the discussion revolved around getting a C/PF for inside play. What is the cost of a dominating, inside playing center and who would that be and is he available? If there is a good one, and they are rare, why would he be traded. The Mavs only had $4.5 to get one if available.

How about a PF? Isn't that Dirk's position? Let's play Dirk in the post. Isn't he the best 3 point shooter the Mavs have? How about Dirk getting the ball everytime down the court on offense? Can the Mavs get away with that? Won't the other team double Dirk and play the passing lanes? Old arguments. Do you think Nelson and all the members of the largest coaching staff in the NBA, including Donnie, ever discuss any of this?



<< Nellie should see that and work on it. But he does not. That´s why he will be held responsible if the Mavs expirience another early playoff exit. >>



You'll have to tell me more about the Mavs practices because I've never been to any. You know for a fact that Nelson doesn't have his players work on their game. That's interesting. Someone ought to tell Mark because he will want to know what Nelson, and the largest coaching staff in the league, is doing with their time and where they are hiding the mirrors that they use to create the illusion of the Mavs being one of the best teams in the NBA.

And what &quot;early playoff exit&quot; are you talking about? Two years ago, the Mavs made the playoffs for the first time in a decade and suprised, almost, everyone by making the 2nd round. Last year, the Mav swept their way into the 2nd round and then lost to, IMO, the best team in the NBA. I must have missed this &quot;early exit&quot;. I wanted the Mavs to win last year, but they played the Kings and the Kings were simply the better team. The Mavs saw that their major short-coming was their defense and, although I haven't been to any of their practices, in games the defense appears to be improved. Is it enough? We won't know until the playoffs.

[David]

<<

<< I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Does it have anything to do with your desire to hold Nelson responsible for everything, including the OTHER team's ability to play the game and your desire to only give Nelson blame but no credit? >>



I'll give Nellie credit when he gets out of the second round.

I assume you will give him accountability if he doesn't get out of the second round? >>



Mark holds Nelson accountable. I discuss in detail what I thought.

It's not as black and white as Nelson getting out of the 2nd round. I think their is a perception problem going on here. The Mavs are not Nelson. Nelson is not the Mavs. Credit, and blame, goes out all up and down the organization.

Nelson's role is coach on game day. Rebounding, dribbling, scoring, shooting etc. is up to the players. There is a lot that goes into it. For example, Nelson can put a player in position to succeed but it is up to the player to succeed.

My view is not so narrow that I put it all off on Nelson, positive or negative.

[Bayliss]

<< Mark holds Nelson accountable. I discuss in detail what I thought.

It's not as black and white as Nelson getting out of the 2nd round. I think their is a perception problem going on here. The Mavs are not Nelson. Nelson is not the Mavs. Credit, and blame, goes out all up and down the organization.

Nelson's role is coach on game day. Rebounding, dribbling, scoring, shooting etc. is up to the players. There is a lot that goes into it. For example, Nelson can put a player in position to succeed but it is up to the player to succeed.

My view is not so narrow that I put it all off on Nelson, positive or negative. >>



A lot of words to basically say:

I will not give an opionion one or another on Nellie's coaching in the playoffs.

That would've been much easier.

[David]

<<

<< Mark holds Nelson accountable. I discussed in detail what I thought.

It's not as black and white as Nelson getting out of the 2nd round. I think their is a perception problem going on here. The Mavs are not Nelson. Nelson is not the Mavs. Credit, and blame, goes out all up and down the organization.

Nelson's role is coach on game day. Rebounding, dribbling, scoring, shooting etc. is up to the players. There is a lot that goes into it. For example, Nelson can put a player in position to succeed but it is up to the player to succeed.

My view is not so narrow that I put it all off on Nelson, positive or negative. >>



A lot of words to basically say:

I will not give an opionion one or another on Nellie's coaching in the playoffs.

That would've been much easier. >>



The Mavs are currently 27-5. Do we hold Nelson accountable?

It looks like someone has the view that if the Mavs lose, then it's Nelson's fault. If the Mavs win, then, it's the Mavs that win and Nelson has nothing to do with it.

Suppose the Mavs play the Kings in the playoffs and each game is close but the Mavs lose the series. The Kings go on to win the championship. Is it Nelson's fault? Should Mark fire Nelson? Is it win the championship this year or you are gone Nellie? I suspect in Bayliss-ville, Nelson is gone and in David-ville Nelson keeps his job and the Mavs try again next year.

The other team gets credit for being able to play the game, in my view. Sometimes my team loses because the other team is better or the other team is better, that night. That happens. Sometimes the refs have a hand in the outcome of the game. Sometimes the refs swallow their whistle and sometimes the refs call a foul on Shawn Bradley because they expect him to make a foul, whether he fouls or not.

It looks like, for the Mavs to challenge for the championship, they need Bradley in the game to make their defense works. If, in the playoffs, the Mavs get little to nothing out of Bradley, they will get beat by the better teams that are close to the Mavs in talent. Will it be Nelson's fault if the Mavs get beat in that scenario, or is it Bradley's fault, or is it the refs fault?

Does Donnie have what it takes to lead the Mavs to the championship in the playoffs, should he take over? Can Mark hire a college coach to take the Mavs to the championship? Can Mark hire an NBA retread coach, who is not currently under contract, to lead the Mavs to the championship? Is the cure for the predicament the Mavs are in, to fire Nelson and start over?

I remember, pre-Nelson, when the Mavs were a joke.

I remember after Nelson took over and Nelson made the wrong move and traded Mashburn. Then Nelson made the wrong move and cleaned house and made the firesale trade and got Bradley, among others.

I remember when Nelson made the wrong move and drafted some German that no one had heard of. Then Nelson traded an unprotected first round pick and got Phoenix's third string point guard.

Nelson has made the wrong move all up and down the line, failing as he went. Yet, somehow, the Mavs have gotten just a little bit better every year, no thanks to Nellie. It's been the players that have won the games and Nellie that has lost them. I don't see how Nelson has lasted as long as he has, no better than he has done.

[kg_veteran]

<< The Mavs are currently 27-5. Do we hold Nelson accountable?

It looks like someone has the view that if the Mavs lose, then it's Nelson's fault. If the Mavs win, then, it's the Mavs that win and Nelson has nothing to do with it. >>



Where do you get this from? I don't think anyone is failing to give Nelson his share of credit for regular season wins. I think everyone agrees that Nelson's coaching is a large reason for the impressive win total this season. I, for one, give Nelson a lot of credit for getting the team to 27-5. With most other coaches, they wouldn't be even close to that mark. But to talk about the regular season is to avoid the real topic here, which is: Can Don Nelson be a successful playoff coach, and if he can't, are you willing to admit that change needs to be made?

With the team that Nellie has, he ought to be able to get to the WCF, barring major injuries. If they don't, is it possible that there will be blame to spread to the players? Absolutely. There was last year, and if they don't get there this year, I'm sure there will again. (For those that disagree with me, go back and find some of the heated &quot;interior vs. perimeter defense&quot; debates) However, does that absolve Nellie? Not at all. You may not like it, but ultimately the coach is the one responsible for getting his players to perform in a manner and at a level sufficient to succeed.

Suppose the Mavs play the Kings in the playoffs and each game is close but the Mavs lose the series. The Kings go on to win the championship. Is it Nelson's fault? Should Mark fire Nelson? Is it win the championship this year or you are gone Nellie? I suspect in Bayliss-ville, Nelson is gone and in David-ville Nelson keeps his job and the Mavs try again next year.

If this is the WCF, I think Bayliss would agree that Nellie's not necessarily gone. If it's another 4-1 exit in the second round, I think the answer is yes. What about you?

The other team gets credit for being able to play the game, in my view. Sometimes my team loses because the other team is better or the other team is better, that night. That happens. Sometimes the refs have a hand in the outcome of the game. Sometimes the refs swallow their whistle and sometimes the refs call a foul on Shawn Bradley because they expect him to make a foul, whether he fouls or not.

And is it your opinion that the Kings, Spurs, and Lakers are better? If so, I disagree. Also, surely you're not going to bring referees into this discussion. Don't make Nellie into George Karl.



<< It looks like, for the Mavs to challenge for the championship, they need Bradley in the game to make their defense works. If, in the playoffs, the Mavs get little to nothing out of Bradley, they will get beat by the better teams that are close to the Mavs in talent. Will it be Nelson's fault if the Mavs get beat in that scenario, or is it Bradley's fault, or is it the refs fault? >>



It's Nelson's fault, because Bradley's playing really well right now, and if he ceases to do so, it will be because Nellie did something to make him go bad. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Does Donnie have what it takes to lead the Mavs to the championship in the playoffs, should he take over? Can Mark hire a college coach to take the Mavs to the championship? Can Mark hire an NBA retread coach, who is not currently under contract, to lead the Mavs to the championship? Is the cure for the predicament the Mavs are in, to fire Nelson and start over?

You're like a broken record. Surely you're not going to say we should keep Nellie simply because we're not certain that any replacement would be better, are you? Would you rather remain a &quot;contender&quot; for several years that has no real shot at winning it all, or would you rather take a risk that could pay off to the tune of one or more NBA titles?



<< I remember, pre-Nelson, when the Mavs were a joke.

I remember after Nelson took over and Nelson made the wrong move and traded Mashburn. Then Nelson made the wrong move and cleaned house and made the firesale trade and got Bradley, among others.

I remember when Nelson made the wrong move and drafted some German that no one had heard of. Then Nelson traded an unprotected first round pick and got Phoenix's third string point guard.

Nelson has made the wrong move all up and down the line, failing as he went. Yet, somehow, the Mavs have gotten just a little bit better every year, no thanks to Nellie. It's been the players that have won the games and Nellie that has lost them. I don't see how Nelson has lasted as long as he has, no better than he has done. >>



A lot of words which do nothing to enhance your argument. We all concede that Nelson is very adept at making bad teams good. That's his track record. We all should also be able to admit that Nelson has NOT shown the ability to make good teams great. That's ALSO his track record. If you'd rather stay good knowing that the team probably won't become great rather than risk being bad again to become great, fine by me. I'd rather take the risk, probably because we have different ideas regarding success for this (and any other) team.

[Fidel]

<< You seem to want to blame Nelson if the shots aren't falling. These opponents are NBA teams, with NBA players. In the playoffs, the non-playoff teams are eliminated. In theory, the best NBA teams are playing. Are these other teams playing any defense? If the other team out-plays the Mavs do they get credit for that or is it the only way the Mavs can lose is if the Mavs(read Nelson)fail? >>


Read my post again. I wouldn´t blame Nellie if the shots weren`t falling. It happens. But I would blame Nellie for playing a style of ball which relys heavily on the jumpshot. It´s not necessary. The team has got enough talent to be a little more versatile on offense IMO (inside out).


<< The Mavs hired Nelson to coach his way. If Mark doesn't like the job Nelson is doing, he ought to fire him. If he doesn't fire him, he ought to get out of the way and let him coach HIS way. The regular season record says Nelson is doing better than any team in the league. Not to say the Mavs have the best team, just the best regular season record.

NBA history shows that teams rarely win the whole thing the first time they make the playoffs. It seems that the teams tend to have teams that get in their way and then a team either overcomes the teams they need to hurdle or they go back in the pack. >>


Why are teams able to take that last step? Is it only a question of time, expirience? No, they learn from mistakes, they do adjust their game. Mavs did that with their D, but their should also be some changes in the offensive gameplan in order to be successfull in the playoffs. I haven´t seen much of that.


<< How about a PF? Isn't that Dirk's position? Let's play Dirk in the post. Isn't he the best 3 point shooter the Mavs have? >>


So he should be standing at the 3 point line all game?


<< How about Dirk getting the ball everytime down the court on offense? >>


Good idea. I´ve heard that before somewhere.


<< Can the Mavs get away with that? Won't the other team double Dirk and play the passing lanes? Old arguments. >>


Not only old, but in this case very weak.


<< You'll have to tell me more about the Mavs practices because I've never been to any. You know for a fact that Nelson doesn't have his players work on their game. That's interesting. >>


Now you sound like an ass. I´m talkin about what I see in the games, like anyone else here. If they do work on the things I mentioned it doesn´t show in the games. The only thing Nellie was forced to change is playing a little less small ball, cause Bradley plays so well and because of injuries.

[David]

<< You'll have to tell me more about the Mavs practices because I've never been to any. You know for a fact that Nelson doesn't have his players work on their game. That's interesting. >>




<< Now you sound like an ass. I´m talkin about what I see in the games, like anyone else here. If they do work on the things I mentioned it doesn´t show in the games. The only thing Nellie was forced to change is playing a little less small ball, cause Bradley plays so well and because of injuries. >>

[/i] >>



So, are YOU saying that just because results haven't shown up in games, enough to suit you, that Nelson and staff aren't working on the things you suggest? The way you phrased your post, you knew for a fact that Nelson doesn't have his players work on certain things, AS IF, Nelson and staff aren't smart enough or hard working enough(pick a reason) to improve.

[David]

<<

<< The Mavs are currently 27-5. Do we hold Nelson accountable?

It looks like someone has the view that if the Mavs lose, then it's Nelson's fault. If the Mavs win, then, it's the Mavs that win and Nelson has nothing to do with it. >>

>>





<< Where do you get this from? I don't think anyone is failing to give Nelson his share of credit for regular season wins. I think everyone agrees that Nelson's coaching is a large reason for the impressive win total this season. I, for one, give Nelson a lot of credit for getting the team to 27-5. With most other coaches, they wouldn't be even close to that mark. But to talk about the regular season is to avoid the real topic here, which is: Can Don Nelson be a successful playoff coach, and if he can't, are you willing to admit that change needs to be made?

With the team that Nellie has, he ought to be able to get to the WCF, barring major injuries. If they don't, is it possible that there will be blame to spread to the players? Absolutely. There was last year, and if they don't get there this year, I'm sure there will again. (For those that disagree with me, go back and find some of the heated &quot;interior vs. perimeter defense&quot; debates) However, does that absolve Nellie? Not at all. You may not like it, but ultimately the coach is the one responsible for getting his players to perform in a manner and at a level sufficient to succeed. >>



I think the real question is, how much failure do we, as fans, allow Nelson. What teams are acceptable to lose to in the playoffs and at what point in the playoffs? I get the impression that there is NO losing allowed by some people. I get the impression that it doesn't matter what Nelson does, or has done, if the Mavs don't win the championship, he ought to be fired. I don't agree with that. There are too many variables to give a yes or no answer.

Suppose the Mavs play the Kings in the playoffs and each game is close but the Mavs lose the series. The Kings go on to win the championship. Is it Nelson's fault? Should Mark fire Nelson? Is it win the championship this year or you are gone Nellie? I suspect in Bayliss-ville, Nelson is gone and in David-ville Nelson keeps his job and the Mavs try again next year.



<< If this is the WCF, I think Bayliss would agree that Nellie's not necessarily gone. If it's another 4-1 exit in the second round, I think the answer is yes. What about you? >>



The first year, getting into the playoffs was an accomplishment, anything was fine in the playoffs. Last year, more was expected. The Kings were the best team in the league last year, IMO. I didn't think so going in to the series but the Kings made a believer out of me. This year, who are the Mavs playing in the 2nd round? Mavs/Spurs? Tossup. Mavs/Lakers? Tossup. Mavs/Kings? The Mavs are underdogs.

4-1 exit by the Mavs? How did the Mavs play? Did they play hard and leave it all out on the court and get beat 1,2,3 points in the losses? It depends. Did the Mavs just miss their shots or did the Mavs get grossly out-coached? You say 4-1 exit, automatic firing for Nellie. It's not that simple.

The other team gets credit for being able to play the game, in my view. Sometimes my team loses because the other team is better or the other team is better, that night. That happens. Sometimes the refs have a hand in the outcome of the game. Sometimes the refs swallow their whistle and sometimes the refs call a foul on Shawn Bradley because they expect him to make a foul, whether he fouls or not.



<< And is it your opinion that the Kings, Spurs, and Lakers are better? If so, I disagree. Also, surely you're not going to bring referees into this discussion. Don't make Nellie into George Karl. >>



The Lakers have won the championship THREE YEARS IN A ROW. They have to be considered a favorite, should they make the playoffs. Also two words: Shaq, Kobe.

The Spurs have Duncan and a point guard that Nash and NVE make look like an all-star every time they play the Mavs. The Spurs are a hurdle team for the Mavs.

The Kings have the best overall talent in the NBA, according to me. The Kings blew the championship last year by hitting only 50% of their free throws in the 7th game of the WCF.

I'm going to say the Mavs should be favored against any of the other teams.

Refs? Did you see the 76ers game the other day? Bradley was standing behind the 76ers center, not pushing or anything. Iverson was being guarded by a Mav, I forget who. This other Mav and the 76er's center were between Bradley and Iverson. The whistle blows. Foul, Shawn Bradley. This type of thing is not an isolated incident. Bradley is the key to the Mavs new and improved defense and he gets the respect of a 1st year free agent with the refs. Don't say that the refs can't or won't affect the playoffs.



<< It looks like, for the Mavs to challenge for the championship, they need Bradley in the game to make their defense works. If, in the playoffs, the Mavs get little to nothing out of Bradley, they will get beat by the better teams that are close to the Mavs in talent. Will it be Nelson's fault if the Mavs get beat in that scenario, or is it Bradley's fault, or is it the refs fault? >>





<< It's Nelson's fault, because Bradley's playing really well right now, and if he ceases to do so, it will be because Nellie did something to make him go bad. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] >>



Does Donnie have what it takes to lead the Mavs to the championship in the playoffs, should he take over? Can Mark hire a college coach to take the Mavs to the championship? Can Mark hire an NBA retread coach, who is not currently under contract, to lead the Mavs to the championship? Is the cure for the predicament the Mavs are in, to fire Nelson and start over?



<< You're like a broken record. Surely you're not going to say we should keep Nellie simply because we're not certain that any replacement would be better, are you? Would you rather remain a &quot;contender&quot; for several years that has no real shot at winning it all, or would you rather take a risk that could pay off to the tune of one or more NBA titles? >>



Surely you're not saying that just by firing Nellie that the next guy will do a better job are you?

Who says if Nelson is the coach that the Mavs are doomed to only be a contender but never the champion? There are currently 29 NBA teams. That means every year 28 coaches fail to win the championship. The best players tend to win. Shaq/Kobe three years in a row. Duncan one year. MJ and friends most of the last few years. None of those guys are on the Mavs. Our hope is Dirk with Nash and Fin helping out. I don't see Nelson's coaching as causing the Mavs to lose in the playoffs. On the contrary, Nelson is an asset, not to be thrown away lightly.



<< I remember, pre-Nelson, when the Mavs were a joke.

I remember after Nelson took over and Nelson made the wrong move and traded Mashburn. Then Nelson made the wrong move and cleaned house and made the firesale trade and got Bradley, among others.

I remember when Nelson made the wrong move and drafted some German that no one had heard of. Then Nelson traded an unprotected first round pick and got Phoenix's third string point guard.

Nelson has made the wrong move all up and down the line, failing as he went. Yet, somehow, the Mavs have gotten just a little bit better every year, no thanks to Nellie. It's been the players that have won the games and Nellie that has lost them. I don't see how Nelson has lasted as long as he has, no better than he has done. >>





<< A lot of words which do nothing to enhance your argument. We all concede that Nelson is very adept at making bad teams good. That's his track record. We all should also be able to admit that Nelson has NOT shown the ability to make good teams great. That's ALSO his track record. If you'd rather stay good knowing that the team probably won't become great rather than risk being bad again to become great, fine by me. I'd rather take the risk, probably because we have different ideas regarding success for this (and any other) team. >>



Great players make great teams. I don't think some of you guys realize just how good a coach Nelson is. There are only a handful, in the world, that are better, IMO. It's a short list.

[BrianJ]

Dave if these keeps up I am going to have to ship you a 12 pack of brew. Let it go dude. Some people just have unrealistic goals to be met. I assure you these same people would be like Nellie was a god, a genious , if we could have only kept Nellie, immediately after he is gone. Its just human nature. The grass will always be greener on the other side