Nelson stuck in the middle

[mavsfanforever]

Here is the link

Nelson stuck in the middle
He'd scrap his schemes for dominant center
By Richie Whitt
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - In the summer of 1998, the wings were hot, the beer was cold and the napkins were growing scarce as Don Nelson frantically sketched the Xs and Os of his drive-and-dish offense for a table of awe-struck observers.

As the NBA's most innovative coach drew the "O" for yet another center, he abruptly came to a mental jump-stop. What appeared to be a startling revelation for the three-time Coach of the Year and third-winningest coach in league history was instead a salivating daydream.


"I'm sittin' here drawing all this crap," Nelson chuckled after snapping out of it, "but give me a guy like Shaq, and I'll throw it in the trash and change styles tomorrow. I'm no fool."


After 25 years, countless blueprints and no trips to the NBA Finals, Nelson is still diagramming, still plotting and still inventing ways to win a championship without an elite center. During a Hall of Fame career in which he's seen Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Robert Parish, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal lift trophies high because they dominated down low, Nelson has - by chance and by choice - counter-punched with a litany of slim-and-none centers, including 7-foot-3 Randy Breuer, 7-4 Ralph Sampson, 7-7 Manute Bol and 7-6 Shawn Bradley.


"It's certainly not for lack of trying," said Nelson's son and Mavs assistant, Donnie. "Nobody knows better than him that center is the hardest piece to find. He's tried a little of everything, and it's just never panned out."


In today's Game 2 of the Mavs' Western Conference first-round playoff series against the Portland Trail Blazers, Nelson will again count on his latest pivot potion - Bradley mixed with Raef LaFrentz - to support his team's pretty points with dirty work. In Game 1, the duo combined for 13 points, 14 rebounds and seven blocked shots, enough to help the Mavericks to a 96-86 win.


With production from Bradley and LaFrentz, the Mavericks are arguably the NBA's best team. Without, they can be reduced to a team forced to make double-digit 3-pointers. A team that can tie for the NBA's best record and yet be the least-respected 60-something since Roger Maris. A team that, against a Shaq or a Duncan in the West finals, will be an underdog equal to the NHL's Mighty Ducks against the Stars.


Admitted Donnie, "It's a very difficult way to go about the task."


For a franchise whose most reasonable facsimile of a dominant back-to-the-basket center has been James Donaldson, the disadvantage is nothing new. Nor is it unique to Nelson, whose creative ploys for David to outrun Goliath will likely be both his legacy - and his epitaph.


Nelson got his first NBA job with the Bucks in 1976, in part because they were off to a 3-15 start after trading away someone named Abdul-Jabbar. Behind the 8-ball then, Nelson's been chasing the 7-footers ever since. Initially saddled with Scott Lloyd and Swen Nater, Nelson eventually built 50-win, division-championship Bucks teams that featured Kent Benson, Dave Cowens, Alton Lister, Jack Sikma and Paul Mokeski.


"If he could use me, he could use anybody," joked Mokeski, who averaged 4.0 points per game in a 12-year career and is now a Mavs' developmental coach. "He hasn't always had the best cards, but he's always won with the hand he's been dealt. It's because he adapts. Give Nellie a guy who's an expert at the half-court hook shot, and he'll find a way to work him in his offense."


Nelson actually coached two Hall of Fame centers in Bob Lanier and Patrick Ewing. But in Milwaukee in the early '80s, Lanier's knees and production were worn out. And in New York in 1996, Ewing resisted when Nelson -- in an attempt to keep his center fresh for the playoff grind -- tried to lessen his regular-season offensive load.


"Patrick was set in his ways and Nellie was set with his style," said former Mavs star Derek Harper, a guard on that Knicks team that saw Nelson fired with a 34-25 record. "Nellie likes his centers to be more versatile, not really guys who you just throw the ball to on the low blocks and let go to work. He's never had a legit center, but with the way he's won, at some point you just have to give credit where credit is due."


As general manager of the Golden State Warriors in the late '80s, Nelson continued his unconventional plan to simply go over, instead of around or through, the NBA's biggest men. In Oakland, he traded for Sampson and signed Bol, after drafting Breuer in Milwaukee and before trading for Bradley in Dallas. Those 30 feet of fascination produced wins, but not rings.


"He's always gone for agile shot-blockers more than guys that are the focal point of the offense," Mokeski said. "But that's only because he never had the luxury of Olajuwon or Duncan or Shaq."


Frustrated by early playoff exits in Golden State with centers Tyrone Hill, Tom Tolbert, Christian Welp and even Mavs reject Uwe Blab unable to complement the high-scoring "Run TMC" trio of Tim Hardaway-Mitch Richmond-Chris Mullin, Nelson traded for a marquee low-post presence in Chris Webber in '93. But that experiment failed, as did drafting Chris Anstey, trading for Juwan Howard and counting on John Williams in Dallas.


Now, despite journeying 1,156 coaching victories, Nelson finds himself not far from where he started. Armed with the jump-shooting LaFrentz and the inconsistent Bradley, the Mavs coach is again winning at a record pace -- only to see the player he's never had (Duncan or O'Neal) perhaps waiting to keep him from the place he's never been (NBA Finals).


"History says it's difficult," Nelson said at the restaurant in '98. "But obviously I don't think it's impossible."


Another order of wings. Another round of beer.


And another roll of napkins.

[Drbio]

Did I read that right? Nellie called his own work "crap"?

[nowitzki_prophecy]

he knows that when a superstar gets a 30/20 game and a little help from his friends,all that blue prient would'nt do anything.

[sturm und drang]

I find it hard to exculpate Nellie for his style by blaming it on not having a good center. This excuse doesn't work, unfortunately, when you're also the GM.

Nellie has always *chosen* to go for "finesse" centers, a la Raef LaFrentz; he's been the GM here since '97. That's SIX FULL YEARS. If he'd really wanted a dominant center, he would've figured out a way to get one by now.

[aexchange]

umm, off the top of my head over the past 6 years i can only think of a few dominant centers.

shaq
duncan
mourning

you could throw ewing, olajuwon, or robinson into the mix, but they were all clearly on the back ends of their careers.

who are you going to trade to get shaq, duncan, or mourning?

[madape]

Yeah, if Nelson REALLY wanted Shaq or Duncan, I'm SURE he would have found a way to get them by now. Hahaha...

[sturm und drang]

It's hard for me to swallow his excuse when he was the GM in Golden State for years and in Dallas for 6 years. If it had been a priority, he would've found a center somehow; it's not like Nelson has ever shown any hesitance to swing the big trade. He didn't even need to find a "dominant" center, merely a servicable one. Just look at who he went after when the great Bradley experiment failed-- Raef LaFrentz. It's very obvious that Nelson has dedicated his coaching career to finding a way AROUND having a good--or simply servicable-- traditional center.

I just think the logic to this article is backwards; that is, Nellie's never had a dominant center because of his belief in and practice of Nellieball. Not the other way around.

[seelenjaeger]

If that was true, sturm, why is Nellie as a GM almost all the time exploring ways to get centers by trades? You cannot "lure" someone like Mourning, Shaq, Duncan to Dallas, you have to PAY for them ... if you can´t you have to find the new dominant guys ... that´s why LaF is heere.

[madape]

Centers no longer central
By David DuPree, USA TODAY

Where, oh where, have all the centers gone? The players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster, yet the NBA seems to have evolved from a game dominated by centers. (Related item: Tonight, Shaq vs. Yao)Today, instead of game-controlling centers such as Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell battling in the post, an NBA game is more likely to feature converted forwards playing on the wings, with no one in the paint.

"The center position has changed because there aren't enough skilled guys who can play with their backs to the basket," says Hall of Famer Jack Ramsay, who coached two centers of the most opposite type imaginable — Bill Walton and Bob McAdoo.

Walton, who led Portland to the 1977 title, was a classic low-post center, a great passer with great inside moves.

McAdoo, with the Buffalo Braves, led the NBA in scoring three years in a row (1974-76) as a converted power forward who faced the basket, getting most of his points on short jumpers.

There are a number of reasons why the center position as we know it is fast-tracking toward extinction:

The abundance of foreign players who play a more skillful game.
Young big players who think it's cooler to play like a guard.
A lack of fundamentals being taught to young players.
Zone defenses, which make it vital that a center be more versatile and make it easier for teams to get by with smaller lineups.
Without dominant centers, teams are switching from dumping the ball inside to keeping the middle open and using a more slashing, motion-type offense. And they're taking advantage of the post-up game by using a quicker big forward who can handle the ball and shoot from the outside.

Seven-footers used to get shoved into the low post and told to play center — no dribbling or jump shooting, please.
Not anymore.

Players in that mold include Chris Webber of Sacramento, Tim Duncan of San Antonio, Dirk Nowitzki of Dallas and Kevin Garnett of Minnesota.

Being able to go one-on-one and run the pick-and-roll have become essential for NBA players today, and centers who can pass and step out, run the pick-and-roll and shoot a 15-footer are highly valued. If a center can't do that, his team is likely to use in his place a forward who can.

"The foreign influx certainly does have a lot to do with how the center position is played today," New Jersey general manager Rod Thorn says.

"The foreign big guys have skills. They can shoot and pass, and they don't just put them in the post and tell them to dunk. Over here, we're not teaching guys to play with their backs to the basket. They just try to overpower people, and that doesn't work unless you're Shaq."

The first NBA team to win the championship with a role-playing center rather than a dominant one was Golden State, with Clifford Ray in '75.

Ray was a physical, pick-setting center and emotional leader but averaged only 9.4 points, fifth on his team, and the offense certainly didn't go through him.

It took 16 years for a team without a dominant center to win the title again. The Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls won in 1991-'93 with center Bill Cartwright averaging 7.9 points and 5.1 rebounds, and in 1996-'98 with center Luc Longley averaging a modest 9.8 points and 5.5 rebounds.

In contrast, on the other 50 championship teams, the starting centers averaged 19.0 points and 14.2 rebounds.

Over the years there have been fewer and fewer teams with the classic, dominant center as the focal point of the offense.

This season Shaquille O'Neal of the Los Angeles Lakers, Zydrunas Ilgauskas of Cleveland and Yao Ming of Houston are the only ones in the league.

Most teams use converted power forwards such as Brian Grant of Miami, Kurt Thomas of New York and Dale Davis of Portland, so-so centers such as Erick Dampier of Golden State and Michael Olowokandi of the Los Angeles Clippers or role players such as Theo Ratliff of Atlanta.

The teams with the five best records — Dallas, Sacramento, New Jersey, Indiana and Detroit — have different types of centers, yet none is a dominant force.

Dallas' Raef LaFrentz is known for his outside shot more than anything and has taken 301 three-pointers in 102 games over the last two seasons.
Sacramento's Vlade Divac is an excellent passer, fourth on the team in assists at 3.9 a game, but only sixth in scoring (9.7).
Jason Collins of New Jersey averages only 4.2 shots.
Brad Miller of Indiana has the most impressive statistics at 14.2 points and 8.2 rebounds, but he usually stays out of the middle so power forward Jermaine O'Neal, the team's leading scorer (19.9) and rebounder (10.1), can post up.
Clifford Robinson of Detroit is really a forward who faces the basket, shoots jumpers (12.9 points a game) and gets only 3.7 rebounds a game.
Shaquille O'Neal (fourth) and Ilgauskas (35th) are the only centers among the league's top 50 scorers. No center in the league leads his team in scoring, and the average starting center is only his team's No. 5 scorer.

With teams allowed to double-team centers and play zone defenses, the three-point shot becomes a weapon.

"The rules have made it so you don't necessarily need a traditional center," says Philadelphia 76ers general manager Billy King, who in the offseason traded 7-2 center Dikembe Mutombo, when healthy perhaps the most dominant center in the East, to New Jersey for 6-10 forward Keith Van Horn and a serviceable center, Todd MacCulloch.

"It's a different game now."

[sturm und drang]

Of course you have to find the new "dominant" guys. But Nelson seems to have a mentality that he can finesse his way around having a true, traditional center. He did most notably in Golden State and also here... Instead of trying to find a decent traditional center, he's relied on schemes and new-fangled ideas-- WOW! A seven foot center who can shoot threes!-- to compensate.

For another example of this philosophy, just look at the line-ups he's traditionally used in crunch time. Ah, yes: beloved SmallBall. I will grant you some reason for this is that our centers are less-than-imposing on most nights, but Nellie has similarly shown no patience to let them play through their mistakes or get any kind of rhythm going. Just look at Bradley's performance in game 1; he was mad, driven and involved. He was blocking shots and picking up rebounds. And he didn't even play in the 4th quarter, not even when the Blazers started their run. Nellie's philosophy is that he can compensate for lack of a decent traditional center through different types of centers (LaF) or small line-ups. And this innate philosophy, I think, influences his decisions as GM.

Therefore, as a coach I find it difficult to swallow that he blames his NellieBall-- which has never even taken him to the Finals-- on a lack of a center. I think it's the other way around.

[sturm und drang]

And the last three championships, madape, have been won by... oh, that's right. A team based on, rooted in, dependent upon a dominant center.

I'm not going to be sold on the fact that the center has truly disappeared until another team becomes truly dominant without one. As talented as the Kings undoubtedly are, they did lose to LA last year...

Good centers are undoubtedly hard to come by-- there's no denying that. But Nellie-- instead of concentrating on doing what it takes to develop and/or acquire one-- thinks in his heart of hearts that he can successfully outcoach, out match-up, out-strategize and out-jumpshoot the other team to compensate for it. I'm not sure many other coaches would agree with that innate philosophy.

[madape]

Raef LaFrentz was considered at the time one of the rising stars of the NBA. In many people's eyes he was the best young big man in the league. Even now after a pretty disappointing year, I'd rather have him than Olowakandi, Curry, or any of the other highly touted centers picked with the number one or number two picks in the draft (of which the Mavericks wouldn't have been able to aquire anyway). Raef is certainly better than the Chris Mihms, Curtus Borschartds, Dasagna Diops, and Joe Prizbillas of the world. In fact, the only young guy that has come out in the past couple of years that I would for sure pick over Raef is Yao... of course there is no way in hell the Mavs ever could get him. But if you remember, it was the Mavs who discovered Yao in the first place. So it seems to me that Nelson has done everything he can do to pick up a dominant big man. He traded for arguably the best young center in the league, he's sent scouts to China, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Australia, ghetto US high schools... what else do you want him to do? Tank a couple of seasons so he can get the slim chance to hit lottery gold and nab the first pick in the NBA draft? Even if that happened he'd have about a one in four chance that the draft would produce a dominant center. It doesn't take an idiot to see that dominant centers win championships, but it might just take a genius to be successful without one... and Nelson has. The fact is that dominant centers really can't be aquired, at least not without a whole lot of bad basketball and a whole lot of luck.

And I fart on your comment that Raef and Bradley are not "servicable centers". Bradley had better numbers than every backup center in the NBA, far better than even your boyfriend Keon Clark. On a per-minute basis his numbers were better than 75% of starting centers in the league. NBA.com ranks him as the 15th most efficient player in the game, at ANY position. Raef as I've mentioned before is a good young player who had a disappointing year. But both are playing well now, and look almost dominant in the playoffs against a team intending to physically intimidate them. Far beyond unservicable, I would think. But keep thinking what your thinking. Everyone needs an excuse, even fans of the team with the most wins in the NBA. If blaming Nelson for not being able to aquire a dominant center makes you feel good, have at it.

[seelenjaeger]

Well, I´d take Ty Chandler over Raef, but else I agree.

[madape]

SJ - I would do that too. But I think its a stretch to play Ty at center. Even if you did, he certainly wouldn't be the in the physical, back to the basket, banger type mode that certain folks want the Mavs center to be.

[sturm und drang]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one. To me, it seems that Nelson's moves (or lack thereof) as GM-- when viewed vis-a-vis his coaching style/line-ups/love of SmallBall-- point to an innate belief that he CAN win it all without true production from a traditional, back-to-the-basket center. I say history proves otherwise; the Lakers, for example, are not nearly as deep or talented as the Kings. Yet they won the WCF last year. Why? You can point at refs, you can point at experience or psychological toughness or what-have-you, but I think the single biggest factor is that the Lakers revolve around a dominant center.

And I, too, would rather have Bradley/LaF than a host of other mediocre centers in the league. I'm not a member of the Bradley love-fest that is so rampant here, but I do think he's better than any number of other atrocious centers in the league. I would, however, have a host of other centers over what we've got now: Divac/Clark/Pollard, Mourning, Miller, O'Neal, Duncan, the young and up-and-coming Nesterovic, etc. I'd even consider Deke or a true-PF like Brian Grant. Nelson has never made a true move-- the true sacrifice-- to try to get a top-quality center. I'm saying that he has always believed he can compensate for it-- the lack of interior D, the rebounding and some offensive post game-- in a number of other ways. And I'm not yet convinced that it can be done that way. Of course, the fact that he's won so many games and hasn't ever come close to winning it all seems to support the notion that all the creativity and coaching hi-jinks in the world can't replace having a traditional center.

And, of course, you can point to all the games Nellie has won as corroboration for his philosophy. And then look at how many Finals he's been to... the ag-old debate returns. And I don't want to be held responsible for opening up that can of worms, to be sure.

[Julius]

madape is right!

[Murphy3]

Nellie is where he wants to be.. he can have the team play the style he wants.. plus, he has built in excuses if they lose

[aexchange]

nesterovic?

the line from last night's game.

R. Nesterovic C 23 1-2 0-0 0-0 1 5 0 0 2 1 5 2

thats 5 rebounds, 2 blocks, 1 turnover, 5 fouls, and 2 points. in 23 minutes of play.

NO thanks.

in fact rasho was so dominating last night, the majority of the minutes being played at the C spot by minny was marc jackson. i have seen absolutely nada from the big ukranian, other than being a large body and playing on a team where he is going to look better than he is b/c of KG.

rasho is a spare. in fact he isn't even better than the 2 centers we have right now. and i say this with the least bit of homerism in me.

[aexchange]

<< And the last three championships, madape, have been won by... oh, that's right. A team based on, rooted in, dependent upon a dominant center. >>



and the teams that won before that were won by a dominant SG. so what conclusions can we draw from this?

[madape]

Exactly which of Nelson's moves led you to believe that? Van Exel was NOT the main reason we made that trade with Denver. It was Raef who we were after. In fact, it was rumored that a three-way deal was on the table that would have sent Marcus Camby to the Mavs in return for Nick. Thank goodness the Mavs opted out because of question about Marcus's health. With the exception of Steve Nash, Nelson has never signed a prominent free agent guard. He tried to get a 6'10&quot; small forward last summer to shore up the teams biggest need, but that didn't work out. Is that your evidence that Nelson is trying to biuld a small team? Nelson hasn't made one trade or signing that I can remember with the specific purpose of improving his small ball lineup. In fact, he shipped out Timmy Hardaway after about three months in favor of a potential starting center. Mashburn went to Miami for Kurt Thomas. Jim Jackson and Sam Cassell went to New Jersey for Bradley. It seems to me that almost everything he has ever done as a GM has in fact been a sacrifice to get bigger and stronger in the post. Look at the guys who have passed through here that Nelson has aquired: Bradley, Raef, Christial Laettner, Gary Trent, Popeye Jones, Hot Rod Williams, Kurt Thomas, Loy Vaught, Dennis Rodman, Sean Rooks, Juwan Howard. Even George Muresan was given a look. I just don't see how you can sit there and say that Nelson hasn't tried to improve in the low post. You even have the audacity to say he makes moves to try to get smaller. Thats ridiculous. Please tell me exactly what kind of moves Nelson has made in his quest for small ball? Do that, and I'll name you at least ten more that he's made in attempt to get better in the post.

[sturm und drang]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I have never said or insinuated that Nellie has purposefully tried to build a smaller team in his role as GM. He has, in my opinion, done a few things that indicate that his innate philosophy is that a true, traditional center is not a necessity to build a championship team:

1. In crunch time-- with the game on the line-- who does he play? More often than not, it's SmallBall. See playoff game 1 for yet another example of what Nellie believes is his &quot;strongest line-up&quot;. (His words.) Now, if he truly believed the traditional center was a necessity, wouldn't he employ a line-up with AT LEAST LaFrentz or Bradley in at the end of the game?

2. There's been incredible moaning on this website that Bradley, especially, doesn't get enough minutes. Why? You've pointed to Bradley's efficiency per minute-- 15th overall in the NBA-- and we've all wondered at some time or other why Nellie seems to refuse to let him play more, play through the rough spots. What I'm postulating is that, in his heart of hearts, Nellie believes that Bradley's play is not totally essential to the team. If he did, my guess is that he would let Bradley play through the mistakes and malaise. Instead, he gets yanked.

3. From a GM perspective, he has never made the effort to land a good center. I understand, yes, that these good centers are few-and-far-between, and are incredible commodities. Again, why? Because most NBA coaches-- George Karl, for one, excepted-- believe that a traditional center is the cornerstone of a championship team. There are a number of better centers in the league than what we've got-- I'm going to add Z. Ilgauskas to my previous list, too-- and Nelson, though never reluctant to pull the trigger, has never made an adequate effort to get one. He's not willing to trade his precious run and gun offensive pieces to get a big, lumbering center... and that's what it's going to take.

I don't think Nelson has ever purposefully gotten smaller; I do think that if the opportunity to steal a great center came his way, he'd take it. However, I think this belies his true philosophy. He's shown through both his coaching tactics and his refusal to make a big trade (read: sacrifice one of his Nellie-style players) that he truly believes he can work his way around having a traditional center. And I think this underlying belief in his ability to compensate in other areas has stymied both his efforts to acquire a good/great center and the cultivation/development/playing time of the centers he does have.

Thus, I'm theorizing that his claim of &quot;I've never had a great center to work with&quot; is the result-- not the cause-- of Nellie's inherent coaching/team building philosophy.

[Rhylan]

I think you went a step too far saying it would take a &quot;big, lumbering&quot; center to win it all.

The guys you mentioned as guys who you'd rather have -- Divac/Clark/Pollard, Mourning, Miller, O'Neal, Duncan, Nesty, Deke or Brian Grant -- weren't big and lumbering in their primes, and with the exception of Deke and Shaq, aren't big and lumbering now. Heck, some of those guys aren't even true centers. And the only reason Shaq gets away with being that way is because he has ridiculous quickness and footwork for his big lumberingness. The combination of strength and quickness are what makes Shaq better than other behemoths who have come and gone..some of whom can't even get a job in the league.

More traditional, back to the basket - yes, it would help. But Dirk is already more of a center than Brian Grant. And he's a couple post moves and a bank shot away from being no less of a true offensive center than Duncan. It's just a matter of his development and how he's used. The point is -- there's you're back to the basket offense right there, in the Dirkster. We need a strong, physical, athletic defender who is at least a legit 6-10 to play center and give us 6 points and 10 rebounds.

[madape]

OK, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. But you think that Nelson should build his team around a center.

But then you throw out names like Ilgauskas, Pollard, Clark, Divac, Brad Miller, and Nesterovic. Sorry Sturm, but if you are suggesting that the Mavs should biuld a team around any one of those yahoo's I'm going to have to fire you. There is not a legitimate all-star in the bunch. Big Z shoots like 42%, and he's a freaking center! That's terrible. The Cavs are the worst team in the league, and even they have given up the idea of building a team around him. Pollard and Clark are freaking backups for pete's sake. Good backups, but you don't build a team around backup centers.

Lets say, the Mavs do what you are implying and trade Finley, Van Exel or someone for Big Z and make him an important part of their offense. We'd slow it down, feed it into him, and let him do his work. Forget about dominating the transition game, we'd have to wait for Z's lumbering ass to limp down the court so we can get into our half court set. Forget about the Nash drive and dish, defenses would play off big Z and camp out in the lane. Forget about motion on the offense, it's strickly isolation and pick and rolls. Planing Z in the paint would kill your spacing and hurt everyone else's ability to score in the half-court set. All this to cater to the offensive skills of a 42% shooting lumpy center. The Mavs would instantly drop from being the team with the NBA's best record to a lottery team again. Ilgauskas can't even help the Cavs to 20 wins! And you want to change your whole philosophy to cater to his meager skills? No way Jose.

The point is that if you are going to build your team around a center, he better be a pretty damn good center. And there are only two or three big men out there that are good enough to build a team around. The rest should be supporting players and nothing more. If you ARE dumb enough to build your team around a mediocre center, you'll wind up being stuck in the lottery with the stinking Clippers and Cavs.

The teams that have won championships have not necessarily always had the best center in the game. Championship teams are built around dominant players, regardless of position. It looks like Nelson is building this championship team around Dirk. Not a bad idea considering he's already one of the best players in the game, and already has led us to the league's best record at the tender young age of 24... I certainly wouldn't want to scrap everything and build the team around someone like Scott Pollard.

[Big Boy Laroux]

<< The teams that have won championships have not necessarily always had the best center in the game. Championship teams are built around dominant players, regardless of position. >>



exactly, the lakers won because they have the most dominant player in the game. not just the best center.

the bulls won because they had the most dominant player in the league (with some help from the refs... [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] )... i mean, c'mon... will perdue? bill wennington?

spurs... eh, we'll not that count that one... although i will say that duncan + a healthy robinson could equal to the most dominant player in the league that year.

we're building around one of the most dominant players in the league, if not soon to be THE MOST dominant.

[sturm und drang]

<< I think you went a step too far saying it would take a &quot;big, lumbering&quot; center to win it all. >>



Sorry Rhylan, I sometimes forget how poorly sarcasm plays on the Internet. Was being facetious.

Madape, I think there's a way to rely on a good center without compromising the fast-paced nature of this team. Bradley's certainly not the quickest or sprightliest of men-- how could he be, he's 7'6&quot;-- but I don't really feel the offense bogs down appreciably when he's in. In fact, look at the Mavs' record when Shawn has a double-double. Now, imagine if either a.) we had a center that could give us that kind of production CONSISTENTLY or b.) Nellie were willing to let Shawn play through the mistakes and bad games. Do you really think that would slow us down to the point it stagnates our offense? It might slow it down somewhat, but if you look at the added benefits of rebounding, interior defense, etc. then I think the benefits far outweigh the potential negatives.

When I look at the areas of the Mavs' game that need the most improvement, it's the half-court, grind-it-out offense. Having a reliable center who got reliable minutes would really help in that execution-- especially down the stretch and in the playoffs. I still gasp at some of the mistakes we make in the half-court set-- Nash's rushed, out-of-control lay-up towards the end of game 1 comes to mind-- and imagine that our execution of such could be improved by solid center play. (And more minutes for said center.) I think, ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you think this Nellie style of basketball can win a championship-- and I just don't. History seems to bear me out on this, unfortunately. I truly hope I'm wrong. Our playoff performance this year, I think, will give us a good barometer of the efficacy of this style of basketball.

[seelenjaeger]

Bradley, Dirk and Raef are all VERY VERY mobile big guys. They are top 10 % concerning their size. So YES, I do consider Bradley quite a fast player. He´s no-one for fast break, but he´ll for sure beat Zyd and others running the floor.

[MFFL]

<< &quot;I'm sittin' here drawing all this crap,&quot; Nelson chuckled after snapping out of it, &quot;but give me a guy like Shaq, and I'll throw it in the trash and change styles tomorrow. I'm no fool.&quot;

And in New York in 1996, Ewing resisted when Nelson -- in an attempt to keep his center fresh for the playoff grind -- tried to lessen his regular-season offensive load. >>



While Nellie might SAY that he'd change styles, he has already proven that he won't.

[David]

If a center is any good, the other team won't trade him. There are no dominant AVAILABLE centers. Nelson has had that quest for a center his whole career. Just because a GM WANTS a center, doesn't mean a decent one can be acquired. We can list all the better centers in the league but why do the other teams trade them, if they are among the better centers in the league?

Ewing was past it when Nelson was the coach in NY and needed to be phased out. He wasn't as good as Shaq on his best day and certainly no comparison at the end of his career. Van Gundy actually implemented Nelson's changes gradually and Ewing was shipped off, later.

[MFFL]

research bump