I understand - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 11:11 AM

<< Nellie's time has passed. And the Mavs will not win any championship until Nellie is replaced (and hopefully the replacement is his son). >>

I'm sorry Bayliss. You and I have agreed on a lot of things and I generally respect your contributions here, but this sentiment seems characteristic of a general knee-jerking reaction among Mavs fans following the Kings series.

Yes, Nellie has never won a championship and that puts an asterisk next to his career until/unless he does so. But Nellie has already done a great job with this team in taking them from out of the lottery to a 50+ win team that makes the second round of the playoffs, and just because we lost in the second round doesn't justify calling for a major change--either in personnel on the court or in replacing the head coach and his system.

The Bulls, with Michael Jordan, lost in the first round of the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87. They added Scottie Pippen and lost in the second round in 88. Then they lost in the championship in 89 and in 90. And then they finally started their championship run. The Kings were swept by the Lakers in the first round. Then they were swept by the Lakers in the second round. Then they played the Lakers to the wire in the conference finals.

The 2001 Mavericks overachieved to get to 50+ wins and then to come back from a 2-0 deficit to get out of the first round. The 2002 Mavericks played up to their level to get even more wins (setting a number of team records for wins while they were at it), to sweep in the first round and to lose in the second round to the team that went on to give the 3 time world championships everything they could handle.

There is no reason to believe that with normal growth of the team together plus a little tweaking the Mavs won't take another step next year. Jumping overboard and deciding that because this team didn't become at least the second best team in the league this year and only got to 3rd or 4th that they therefore don't have a chance to become the 2nd best team next year and the best team the year after that is to have unrealistic expectations.

TheKid · 06-18-2002, 11:21 AM

The reason we beat the Lakers the last time we played them is because we rebounded and shut down Kobe. The reason we beat the Kings 3-1 is that our perimeter players outplayed theirs. It's not a coincidence

Well you can't really base what we did against Kobe for ONE game and think we could do something like that for a series because actually it wasn't the first game Kobe has been off against the Mavericks and the Mavs didn't win those games.

Also I can recall against us beating the Kings in Sacramento and the big thing was Raef and Dirk had outstanding games and basically the entire Sacramento team shot HORRIFIC from the field. In that game we didn't have stellar performances from Nash or NVE or Fin for that matter. So in every situation I guess we can find a defense for our arguments but I guess I'm just going with the theory that with a strong front and controlling the boards and keeping the opposing team off the boards, you will win the majority of the times.

The Mavericks and Kings are examples of why perimeter teams very rarely get it done. I know the Mavs should have and could have beat the Kings but we didn't. I know the Kings should have and could have beat the Lakers, but they didn't. The team that won the championship and has won the championship for the past three seasons has done so by having the MOST DOMINANT interior player in the game. It's because when Kobe and Fisher and Horry aren't hitting shots, they can go inside. When they're perimeter defense breaks down, they have help behind them.

My point is if you have a STRONG perimeter defense and average interior, you can go over the top of it and exploint the interior. You have higher percentage shots, therefore a higher percentage of shots will go in if a team continually gets opportunities. With an AVERAGE perimeter and strong interior, oppenents will probably get majority perimeter shots. If they're on they're probably going to win the game yes, but which would you prefer having a team shoot jumpshots or taking layups? That's the way I look at it I guess.

My thing is, let's say we had someone like Oakley or Rose. Do I REALLY think Bibby drives by Fin on that baseline and get all the way to the basket? I don't think so and maybe he hits a jumpshot but I'd prefer him to take a baseline jumpshot than have him taking an uncontested layup.

Bayliss · 06-18-2002, 11:34 AM

<< There is no reason to believe that with normal growth of the team together plus a little tweaking the Mavs won't take another step next year. >>

There is reason, his name is Nellie. Oh, we'll have a great year next year. Probably win 55 games. The come playof time, we'll lose in the second round again. Why? Because history has shown it with Nellie.

Until Nellie actually wins something, then my statements are facts. Want to hear something harsh? Nellie is the "Webber coach." He does great for most of the game. Puts up incredible ststs. Then can't find the way to win the big games.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 11:35 AM

<< Yes they're not beefier but for whatever reason they seem to have been able to stabilize their interior more than the Mavs did. I'm not comparing how they did against the Lakers, I'm looking more of how they did against each other. >>

Reasons (in no particular order):
a) Their perimeter defense did a better job, meaning Divac and Webber didn't have to worry about covering for everybody else as much or worry as much about fouls.
b) Their team defense did a better job--the Kings as a team knew their rotations and executed them well so that the double teams appeared when they needed to and the team recovered as well. On the opposite end, Divac and Webber are better passers than Dirk and Raef, so on top of the fact that the Mavs didn't rotate as well as the Kings, the Kings handled Mavs rotations better. As a particular note, this one has a lot to do with the fact that Webber and Divac have been playing together for 3 years and have had 2 full years playing with most of the rest of the team.
c) Divac is a significantly better defender (though not shot blocker) than Raef. Again, that's not because of physical capability or being more physical than Raef. Its because he's more experienced, plays smarter, and gets more respect from the refs because of the first two. Also, Webber and Divac weren't individually hampered by the bad decision to front the post. This is something I totally agree with Murph on. Against a good passing team like the Kings, that tactic just ate us up.

<< Basically I just have a different view, I know Bibby, Jackson and Christie having outstanding games hurt us probably more than their inside guys but when I look to the Laker series and see that Jackson and Bibby played extremely well, it wasn't enough to get past Lakers. >>

I look at the Lakers series and see that a gut check by Webber or a Peja ready to play could have easily won that series. Webber didn't want the ball when it got close in game 7, and Peja's air-balled 3 (I don't know if that was because Peja has the same heart problem as Webber or because he had gotten rusty recovering from that sprained ankle, but that was clearly an unforced error) were both things that gave the game to the Lakers. If the Kings had just hit their free throws at their own average rate (much less Dallas') they would have won that game.

<< So while I can understand a NEED for slashing consistent 3, >>

I'm not so adamant about the slashing. I think Dirk, Fin and our pgs do a fairly good job of that. A rebounding, defensive 3 with enough offense to keep Nellie happy is all I demand :-)

<< Also the thing about Mourning is, yes I understand in his condition he may only be able to play a year or two at the most, however this is ONE thing I hope everyone understands. If the Mavs don't atleast get to a championship in the next two years, this team WILL be dismantled anyway. Fin won't be here, and MAYBE Nash won't be here either. They will start this thing all over, so while I think a slashing 3 would be nice but I don't think it's essential because personally I think defense should be addressed more so than the offensive end. >>

I know Nellie is smarter than this and I hope Cuban listens to him. The NBA is not the internet. Things take time. The Mavs will not win a championship next year without a lot of luck. If they bring in Mourning, it becomes even less likely next year because yet again the team will spend the year adjusting to something new instead of doing what they need to do right now--perfecting what they have so they have a shot in 2 years. I completely agree that defense is the issue now, not offense

<< Just my opinion of course. >>

Of course, and vice versa.

<< Oh and by the way I think you're wrong Rhylan, Hoops has the highest IQ on this board with the exception of ME [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] >>

Well, if everyone thinks I'm the second-smartest guy after themselves, I think I know how to intepret that [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Bayliss · 06-18-2002, 11:38 AM

<< The Bulls, with Michael Jordan, lost in the first round of the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87. They added Scottie Pippen and lost in the second round in 88. Then they lost in the championship in 89 and in 90. And then they finally started their championship run. The Kings were swept by the Lakers in the first round. Then they were swept by the Lakers in the second round. Then they played the Lakers to the wire in the conference finals. >>

Don't remember the exact year but the Bulls made a coaching change in the late 80's. After repeatedly failing in the playoffs, they made a coaching change... then went on to win 6 championships. Whether it was the coaching change or the greatest player ever is debatable.

So looking at the Bulls pattern perhaps it is time for change? After all, we have a young nucleus (much like the Bulls) and they changed coaches and won 6.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 11:51 AM

<< Well you can't really base what we did against Kobe for ONE game and think we could do something like that for a series because actually it wasn't the first game Kobe has been off against the Mavericks and the Mavs didn't win those games. >>

I read an interesting article that I wish I could find again with a statistical breakdown on Kobe and for the entire season the Mavs were one of the teams Kobe played worst against. And the thing we had in common with the other teams that Kobe had the most problems with is a good offensive 2--someone who makes Kobe really work on the defensive end.

<< Also I can recall against us beating the Kings in Sacramento and the big thing was Raef and Dirk had outstanding games and basically the entire Sacramento team shot HORRIFIC from the field. In that game we didn't have stellar performances from Nash or NVE or Fin for that matter. >>

Are you talking about the one game we won? Nash was our high scorer with 30 points on 12 of 18 shooting. And he added 8 assists. Sacramento did shoot badly.

<< The team that won the championship and has won the championship for the past three seasons has done so by having the MOST DOMINANT interior player in the game.. >>

True, but that's also why they aren't a good example of anything. Shaq is not only the most dominant interior player in the game right now, he is the most dominant since Wilt Chamberlin. He's a unique player, and nobody is arguing that if we have a chance to add Shaq we shouldn't do it. But other than Shaq and Duncan (who is the 2nd best interior player in the game right now), 6 other teams made the second round. And not one of them had a dominant interior player.

seelenjaeger · 06-18-2002, 11:54 AM

Actually i think one of the main reasons we lost to sacto is that they played together for some time (if you leave behind Bibby - but he needed the whole regular season to finally show up).

Once LaFrentz and our core will be given the chance of developing a real team play together with our all-time injured Buck, Griff and TaW (that´s not helping either) and likely Najera and Bradley/Esch our game will run smooth.

It´s time to make a move NOW, or to stay put for the year.

I´d like us to move Nick for some SF OR C and maybe some future prospect or old but big body, and to go through camp and season with this team.

TheKid · 06-18-2002, 11:55 AM

Reasons (in no particular order):

a) Their perimeter defense did a better job, meaning Divac and Webber didn't have to worry about covering for everybody else as much or worry as much about fouls.

I don't know if I quite agree with this because Webber and Divac were in foul trouble alot and they were on fouls they picked up from Fin driving to the basket basically at will and from Dirk in the post. The perimeter slowed down Nash (with the exception of game 2) and NVE but that perimeter defense didn't do much to slow Fin down or Buck in certain situations.

b) Their team defense did a better job--the Kings as a team knew their rotations and executed them well so that the double teams appeared when they needed to and the team recovered as well. On the opposite end, Divac and Webber are better passers than Dirk and Raef, so on top of the fact that the Mavs didn't rotate as well as the Kings, the Kings handled Mavs rotations better. As a particular note, this one has a lot to do with the fact that Webber and Divac have been playing together for 3 years and have had 2 full years playing with most of the rest of the team.

This I agree with when comparing defenses. The only defense the Mavs seem to understand is that full court trap but if we ran that consistently against the Kings they would have killed us because they pass so well. Also I do think the fact that Webber and Divac has played some seasons together is a major factor into them knowing how to react because they know what the other is going to do.

I look at the Lakers series and see that a gut check by Webber or a Peja ready to play could have easily won that series. Webber didn't want the ball when it got close in game 7, and Peja's air-balled 3 (I don't know if that was because Peja has the same heart problem as Webber or because he had gotten rusty recovering from that sprained ankle, but that was clearly an unforced error) were both things that gave the game to the Lakers. If the Kings had just hit their free throws at their own average rate (much less Dallas') they would have won that game.

This could very well be true, however this is the one thing I wonder. I thought or think Webber was being a coward down the stretch, however could this had something to do with the defense that the Lakers decided to turn up to slow Webber down? If you look at that series, they realized Bibby was the ONLY one who could create or get his own shot, so they put the clamps DOWN on Webber and basically said they could live with Bibby beating the because Webber won't step up!

David · 06-18-2002, 05:21 PM

<< David, true it wasn't "fact"... but at some point you have to quit coaching like an underdog and start coaching like your a title contender. The Mavs had a realistic shot at going to the WCF's **last year**. Did it happen? Nope. Why? Because of coaching mistakes, and the coach's philosophy.

I agree with Murph. If Nellie changes his style then he may make it to the finals. However, he will never win a championship. >>

I don't agree. The team with the best talent generally wins, especially in a 5 or 7 game series. This is the best Mavs talent in years. For a change the Mavs have one of the best players in the league, in Dirk. It takes a while for a player and team to get acclimated to each other. How many years did it take Jordan and Shaq to win titles, as an example.

You say the Mavs lost because of coaching mistakes. I don't believe that for an instant. The Mavs were out played and out smarted ON THE COURT. Divac's experience beat the Mavs inside. Bibby and Jackson outplayed our PGs. Christie outplayed Fin. Dirk had an off shooting series. The better team won the series. If not for free throw shooting, the Kings would have won the championship.

Nelson doesn't have to change his coaching. His players just need to develop. Nelson is one of the best coaches in the league but players win championships. You can look it up.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 05:39 PM

<< Nelson doesn't have to change his coaching. His players just need to develop. Nelson is one of the best coaches in the league but players win championships. You can look it up. >>

It has been decades since a team won a championship without having one of the top 3 players in the league on the court. The vast majority in that period had the best player in the league and even the 'exceptions' are often arguable (Robinson/Duncan in the Spurs championship, Isaiah Thomas in the Detroit years).

David · 06-18-2002, 05:39 PM

<<

<< There is no reason to believe that with normal growth of the team together plus a little tweaking the Mavs won't take another step next year. >>

There is reason, his name is Nellie. Oh, we'll have a great year next year. Probably win 55 games. The come playof time, we'll lose in the second round again. Why? Because history has shown it with Nellie.

Until Nellie actually wins something, then my statements are facts. Want to hear something harsh? Nellie is the "Webber coach." He does great for most of the game. Puts up incredible ststs. Then can't find the way to win the big games. >>

What about my question from earlier in the thread? When did Nelson have a team that was the favorite to win the title? It's easy to throw stones and expect Nelson's team to win when they don't have the best team. Then you can point and say, "see there, Nelson has never won a championship."

The Mavs won 57 games this year. The most in the history of the team. In my opinion they were closer to winning the title than at any time in history. It is not too much of a stretch to say the Mavs are as good as the Kings and the Mavs can hit their FTs against the Lakers. If, if, if. The Mavs are close. Let's not mess with the team too much and for sure ride Nellie. He's one of the horses on the team.

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 07:24 PM

david i don't think I'd say that Nellie will never win a title. I'm hoping that Nellie will change his focus a bit this year regardless of the lineup. I'd like to see him focus less on creating mismatches for his offense that put his defense in a bad spot.. i think sometimes he does a poor job of utilizing the mismatches that the team already has...

if he can change these things..allow the defense more of a chance, I think the mavs will be more successful. However, I believe this means that there's less of the NVE and Nash playing together (if NVE is still a member). I think it means that when NVE is in the game, Nellie and NVE realize that he's probably going to be the 3rd or 4th best option on the court and the he's used accordingly (i.e., looks to pass first more often). It will mean going with a combination of Griffin, Buckner and TAW for extended minutes (if the mavs have two of them on the roster, I think they need to play 30+ combined minutes a game)

Nellie does have the ability to adjust on the fly.. let's hope he does so this summer... some slight tweaks in his philosophy need to occur

dude1394 · 06-18-2002, 08:43 PM

Nellie has to (and has said he will) change some things this year to limit some of the minutes. However if Nellie CAN'T win the title then what in the world makes us(you) think that little Nellie can?? No track record, no proof, nothing.

For that matter, who besides nellie do you want? Only popovich or tomjanovich have won a title besides Jackson in the last ten years or so that I can remember. Who is the magic coach to take us through Shaq and Kobe??

Let's see......Give Nellie:
- Shaq/Kobie
- Olajuwan
- Duncan..

Maybe he could win a title too. A lot of big time knee-jerking going on around here.

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 08:49 PM

<< A lot of big time knee-jerking going on around here. >>

Where?

dude1394 · 06-18-2002, 08:55 PM

Here's one...

"No. Nelson is the anti-Jackson. He can built great teams. He just can't win the championship with the team he has built from scratch.

Some call Jackson an average coach because he hasn't built a team. I call Nellie an average coach because he can't win big games.

Nellie's time has passed. And the Mavs will not win any championship until Nellie is replaced (and hopefully the replacement is his son)."

And another

"There is reason, his name is Nellie. Oh, we'll have a great year next year. Probably win 55 games. The come playof time, we'll lose in the second round again. Why? Because history has shown it with Nellie.

Until Nellie actually wins something, then my statements are facts. Want to hear something harsh? Nellie is the "Webber coach." He does great for most of the game. Puts up incredible ststs. Then can't find the way to win the big games."

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 08:59 PM

I'd be willing to bet that those posts are done by 1-2 people..and i'm willing to bet that they probably wanted little nellie in here because of the same reasons even before the playoffs..

now, is that alot of knee jerking considering the # of people that post on this board?
no, not really.. actually..if the people involved in those statements have been looking for a change in style for awhile, it wouldn't be knee jerking at all

dude1394 · 06-18-2002, 09:06 PM

Maybe not. I'm feeling kind of contrary tonight. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 09:29 PM

<< Maybe not. I'm feeling kind of contrary tonight. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] >>

Yeah. You and Murph both :-)

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 09:35 PM

well, dude, as a sign of my kindness, i'll let you off the hook on this one

Drbio · 06-18-2002, 10:43 PM

Holy shit...murph and kindness in the same sentence?

Dogs and cats sleeping together...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I would like for Nellie to stay on as GM and let the kid coach.