Can the Mavs make the playoffs without a true point guard in Nellie's system? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

philb7777 · 10-20-2004, 05:41 PM

This is not a backlash e-mail to an 0-3 preseason start for obvious reasons. Dirk out, Dampier hurt, Stackhouse hurt, Marquis hurt, etc. Doesn't bode well for team chemistry and a quick start out of the gate, but thats another thread for another time.......

In my opinion, Harris and Terry are not 'true point guards in the pass first, make your teammates better, raise their level of play, shoot second' point guards. Can Nellie's system work without that? I'm not sure and frankly I doubt it. I don't think combining their assists per game prove anything ( I know they had a combined 13 assists last night). Its the flow of the game, game manangement, your quarterback of basketball that I worry about. I know they can play point guard, but will they excel in Nellie's system?

I know other teams have won championships without a true point guard (ala Detroit in2003-2004) but can we in Nellie's system?

dirk2003 · 10-20-2004, 05:48 PM

http://dallas-mavs.com/forums/messag...threadid=20048

philb7777 · 10-20-2004, 05:55 PM

Sorry missed that thread, but I sure hope we don't get Kidd. If we were going to pay that much for a true PG, why wouldn't we just re-sign Nash? This may be something Cuban secretly regrets for a lifetime........

chumdawg · 10-20-2004, 06:23 PM

I find it impossible to believe that Terry or Harris could actually learn Nellie's system, no matter how much time you give them. I also find it impossible to believe that Nellie has any ability at all to alter his "system" in any way. This is clearly a disaster waiting to happen. To answer your question, I'd say no. It's not even possible. The first pick in the draft seems almost a certainty.

Phil Helmuth · 10-20-2004, 07:20 PM

Nellie is stuborn and his day are numbered.

The Miles · 10-20-2004, 09:21 PM

I remember philb7777 running around here and dallasbasketball.com after Nash left all sad and telling stories about his kids meeting him at the door the day Nash left, etc......

Not suprised to see this topic pop up again with him leading it.

A. Devin Harris is more talented than Steve Nash or Jason Terry
B. Jason Kidd is a PG that plays both ends of the floor, something Nash doesn't.
C. Jason Terry has a better pedigree than Steve Nash so let's just wait and see.

samoan-maverick · 10-20-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Can the Mavs make the playoffs without a true point guard in Nellie's system?

Yes, it's that simple homey

Captain Disaster · 10-20-2004, 10:03 PM

It's way too early to tell if Harris is more talented than Nash -- talented in what way? He certainly isn't a better playmaker, shooter, leader, clutch performer, etc... Maybe he's quicker, can jump higher, plays better defense.... He's still a rookie.

4cwebb · 10-20-2004, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
I remember philb7777 running around here and dallasbasketball.com after Nash left all sad and telling stories about his kids meeting him at the door the day Nash left, etc......

Not suprised to see this topic pop up again with him leading it.

A. Devin Harris is more talented than Steve Nash or Jason Terry
B. Jason Kidd is a PG that plays both ends of the floor, something Nash doesn't.
C. Jason Terry has a better pedigree than Steve Nash so let's just wait and see.

I don't know how you determine A. or C. of your points. What is PG pedigree? Going to Arizona University to play college basketball? By that same argument, most PFs in the league have better "pedigree" than Dirk since they at least played college basketball.

And, as another poster said, what is "more talented"? Run faster, jump higher? Is Harris a better shooter than Nash? I doubt it. A better passer? How would we even be able to measure that at this point?

dude1394 · 10-20-2004, 11:07 PM

Both of those guys will be fine. There were a lot of pick and rolls run last night and the guy setting the pick at the top of the key would roll down the lane. I'd like to see it run with dirk who could also pop out.

fifteenth man · 10-21-2004, 01:17 AM

I'm not sure where this stuff about Devin not being a true point guard comes from.

1) Devin is a true point guard.

2) Nellie always pressed Nash to score more. Nick is a combo guard that did well here. Nellie's system works quite well for a pg that can score and pass.

3) JT can score and pass.

4cwebb · 10-21-2004, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: fifteenth man
I'm not sure where this stuff about Devin not being a true point guard comes from.

1) Devin is a true point guard.

2) Nellie always pressed Nash to score more. Nick is a combo guard that did well here. Nellie's system works quite well for a pg that can score and pass.

3) JT can score and pass.

It could come from the fact that in his junior year at Wisconsin he was more of a scorer than a distributor of the basketball, but considering his teammates, I don't blame him much for shooting. However, just on impressions of players in college basketball last season, I'd call Jameer Nelson more of a "true PG" than Devin Harris. Again, just my impressions from watching each play a little in college last season. Not saying Devin can't become a true point guard, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty that he is a true point guard after watching him play last season for the Badgers.

The Miles · 10-21-2004, 02:49 AM

You obviously never watched his games against Wisconson and Michigan State last year if you are quetioning whether or not he is clutch. I am sure he can miss the same half assed fadeaway off the pick and roll in the playoffs that Nash forced last year.

Nash does not seem clutch at all to me.

The Miles · 10-21-2004, 02:50 AM

Pedigree would include being drafted higher (Terry was 10th), having a better collegiate background (NCAA Player of the Year), being productive before he was 26 years old, etc...

Nash has had four good years in his career and he is 30. Lets not go overboard here.

4cwebb · 10-21-2004, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
You obviously never watched his games against Wisconson and Michigan State last year if you are quetioning whether or not he is clutch. I am sure he can miss the same half assed fadeaway off the pick and roll in the playoffs that Nash forced last year.

Nash does not seem clutch at all to me.

I wasn't really questioning whether Harris was clutch, just whether he was a true PG (or maybe you were replying to someone else).

4cwebb · 10-21-2004, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
Pedigree would include being drafted higher (Terry was 10th), having a better collegiate background (NCAA Player of the Year), being productive before he was 26 years old, etc...

Nash has had four good years in his career and he is 30. Lets not go overboard here.

Not trying to go overboard with Nash, but as soon as Terry has had half as many All Star level years as Nash, then we can compare the two players.

As it is, draft position, collegiate background, and playing for a crappy Atlanta team where a guy is at times the only offensive option do not amount to much in terms of how good of an NBA player a guy is. Guys like Ed O'Bannon and Robert Traylor had loads more pedigree than Dirk, but aren't you glad the Mavs and Bucks made that draft day trade?

Again, I think Terry can play well in this system, and if he learns to run the pick and roll with Dirk even half as effectively as Nash did, I think the Mavs will be fine. But just because Nash decided not to come back to Big D doesn't mean he is terrible.

Dooby · 10-21-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: fifteenth man
I'm not sure where this stuff about Devin not being a true point guard comes from.

1) Devin is a true point guard.

2) Nellie always pressed Nash to score more. Nick is a combo guard that did well here. Nellie's system works quite well for a pg that can score and pass.

3) JT can score and pass.

Exactly right on all three points.

It is the tempo that will get the new mav PG's (Harris, Terry) in trouble. But the ability to pass in that constant up tempo style of play will come with time playing together.

I've made it a point to be clear that I think the Mavs will miss Nash this year. But let's not get carried away in saying that Nash is some mystical "true PG" that just wants to get players involved. Nash liked his shots, he's always among the point leaders among PG's. In what we consider his best years Nash was averaging 17 points 7 assists on 13 shots a game. In '04 he was 3rd in assists/game; '03 he was 8th (behind Jason Terry, btw); in '02 he was 9th.

LRB · 10-21-2004, 03:21 PM

How in the world can anyone possibly judge whether Terry and Harris will or will not be able to get the job done in Nellie's system at this point in the season?

FineCubanCigar · 10-21-2004, 03:36 PM

who cares, Nellie and his system are out the door soon.

EricaLubarsky · 10-21-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: FineCubanCigar
who cares, Nellie and his system are out the door soon.

I'm all for the Nellie-out talk but now that the season is started, we need to give him a chance. He has made no egregious and pusposeful mistakes with this team as of yet. When he screws us up, then I'm all for it, but while we are training and haven't reached our potential with Nellie, it's hardly time to wish for him to fail.

I also hope you understand the implications of a coaching change during the season. Not only would we need to find a good coach, it would further belate any attempt to get the players on the same page. Asking for a new coach now is like asking for a new point guard or a new point forward. We've already seen what can happen when we try to adversely change our team without a pre-season or training camp

The Miles · 10-21-2004, 05:35 PM

We should give Nellie a year to win the title and if he doesn't produce we bring in Phil Jackson.

Phil Helmuth · 10-21-2004, 08:54 PM

I hate Phil Jackson. I think the answer is the "Little General".

jayC · 10-22-2004, 12:20 PM

Marki it down the Mavs will be the 2004-2005 NBA champions. They have as much talent as any team in the league. Get this through your head Nash at his best is a shoot first point guard. He didn't put up 10 asssist seasons, he didn't shoot 50 percent from the field and he didn't lead the league in steals. He is not John Stockton we should stop treating him like he is or ever was.

New point, new swingmen and a new center sounds like the Minnesota Timberwolves. Except all the players we brought in are 30 and younger. Preseason games don't mean squat. The Rangers had a losing preseason and finished with 89 wins. So many new faces you should expect a little bit of a rocky start. The mavs finally realized the way to win it all is through Dirk. There are a ton of teams that win without a great point.

Chiwas · 10-22-2004, 07:07 PM

A year ago we didn't have even the final roster till the last pre-season game.

Quote:

There are a ton of teams that win without a great point.

There isn't a single team that win -it all- without a great coach.

All in all, I expect a better season than last season. Despite our Nash-less and Nellie-ism.

chumdawg · 10-22-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: ChiwasThere isn't a single team that win -it all- without a great coach.

And how does one get to be defined as a "great coach?" It's a circular argument argument you are making here.

Was Larry Brown a "great coach," by your definition, before last year?

mavsfanforever · 10-22-2004, 11:06 PM

Spurs have not won a game yet in pre-season. Hard to believe they will not make the playoffs.

Chiwas · 10-23-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg

Quote:

Originally posted by: ChiwasThere isn't a single team that win -it all- without a great coach.

And how does one get to be defined as a "great coach?" It's a circular argument argument you are making here.

Was Larry Brown a "great coach," by your definition, before last year?

Precisely I was thinking of Larry Brown as a possible exception but I stuck to my comment after it; Brown was a great coach at that moment: Would that team have won the title in the paper? I doubt it, without the way Brown coached them. "Well, but Nellie could make the same with the Mavs"; I hardly believe that Nellie could have that vision -and become the win-it-all coach that we all want- to make our team champion. Hopefully I am wrong, but the very fact that Brown played a strong defense and a dynamic offense, is against those odds. Brown was great to be able to read the Lakers taking into account the pieces he had against the western favorites for the title.

Of course it's a circular argument. Same as when we say Nellie is a great coach cause he is the second most winning coach of the NBA. Or the anti-circular argument when we say Jackson was a great coach due to the fact that Jordan and Shaquille blessed his life.

Btw, "ton of teams winning without a great point" skipped your attention. Why so?

chumdawg · 10-23-2004, 03:29 PM

I wasn't thinking about the point guard argument just then. I doubt that judgment has much merit, the way it was stated.

But on the coaching thing...first of all, you can count me out of the camp that thinks the Pistons did something extraordinary in slaying the Lakers beast. That beast was a figment of the imagination. That team was just asking to get beat.

If you want to start talking about teams "on paper," then I would ask you to tell me just how good Nellie's teams have been "on paper" through the years. Was the Dallas team in '03 better on paper than the Kings squad? Were they 60-games-good, on paper? Were they good enough on paper to take the Spurs to six games in the WCF?

Do you include the following men in your list of "great coaches"? They all won titles in the last 30 years.

Al Attles
Ton Heinson
Jack Ramsay
Dick Motta
Lenny Wilkens
Paul Westhead
Bill Fitch
KC Jones
Chuck Daly
Rudy Tomjanovich

I think there are some greats among that list, and some who have proven not-so-great. A better question would be how great they were, or how great they were perceived to be, before they won a title.

Chiwas · 10-23-2004, 05:53 PM

The Lakers got the finals winning the west. It speaks a lot by itself.

The Mavs on the paper has been terrific in the last 4 years, but underdog under Nellie. If not, then blame Nellie also, he chose them , didn't he?

Every one of them was a great coach indeed.

Your last paragraph is correct. Every subjective comment cannot be judged. It's a perspective from the author. It merely could be compared to his reader's own perspective.

Back on topic, I think the Mavs can make a better season "without a true point guard". It might make or force Nellie adjust his profound basketball principles for good.

Also, a more natural roster, including the departure of Walker -who impeded the natural performance of Dirk-, makes me feel that way. Despite Nelson. But I don't expect the championship by any means, already explained why.

Edit:

P.S. I don't know if the Mavs will win more games or advance further in the postseason, it depends on many factors, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to enjoy a lot more the performance of the Mavs in this season, in spite of -and even missing him- not having Nash.