# How?



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Argh. Tell me how we lose to the (Iverson-less) *Sixers*, (shorthanded) *Pacers* and the *Bulls*. But yet, we beat the *Suns* (without Damp, Daniels and Stack, *Kings & the Sonics* 

We really need to work on consistency for 48 minutes (ie not letting *Toronto* back into the match)


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It's as simple as us not getting cute and playing 50% against bad teams. We need to come out with that killer instinct, and I still don't think we're consistent with that. The one thing that's good about this I guess is that we get up for the elite teams, and they're the only teams alive come playoff time.


----------



## Gambino (Feb 11, 2004)

Chemistry. I still think some of the players were still getting comfortable in there roles. I think Dallas takes care of business if they beat them now.


----------



## Kekai (Jan 12, 2005)

I guess the Mavs think they are going to get an easy win and don't play their hardest. Thats what I think. You shouldn't take teams lightly everyone in the league are ballers. The good thing is they know when to step it up and play good vs. all those powerhouse teams. Thats what matters in the playoffs.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

It does bother me that we lose to some teams that we should beat easily. The only reason it bothers me is that it affects our record and possible seed in the playoffs. However I would rather have us beat good teams and lose to the occassional bad team than beat all the bad teams but struggle against anyone good.

Does the first round seedings continue for the second and 3rd rounds? In other words if we have a better record than say Seattle but we get the 4th seed because we can not catch the Spurs, in the 2nd round of the playoffs would Seattle have the home court advantage or would the Mavs because of the better record?

I thought the seedings were used throught the WCF but I thought I read something which said that we could still have home court in the 2nd round if we had a better record than the team we would face.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

mavsman said:


> It does bother me that we lose to some teams that we should beat easily. The only reason it bothers me is that it affects our record and possible seed in the playoffs. However I would rather have us beat good teams and lose to the occassional bad team than beat all the bad teams but struggle against anyone good.
> 
> Does the first round seedings continue for the second and 3rd rounds? In other words if we have a better record than say Seattle but we get the 4th seed because we can not catch the Spurs, in the 2nd round of the playoffs would Seattle have the home court advantage or would the Mavs because of the better record?
> 
> I thought the seedings were used throught the WCF but I thought I read something which said that we could still have home court in the 2nd round if we had a better record than the team we would face.


better record always gets homecourt...


----------



## aussiewill (Jan 20, 2005)

Its hard to play 100% all year and they think its okay to play crap against **** teams. I can understand it takes a lot to play 82 and then playoffs and be always fit, but they need to know what their expectations are and keep motivated like the spurs always seem to be.


----------



## The Future7 (Feb 24, 2005)

This is the effect of losing Van Exel. In our 60 win season we beat all the teams that we were supposed to beat. We didnt lose to non playoff teams as often as this year.
Were just not as consistent.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That's because he was the cold-blooded closer for us. We don't have a guy with a true killer instinct.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

_Dre_ said:


> That's because he was the cold-blooded closer for us. We don't have a guy with a true killer instinct.


Please, stop with the overating of Nick Van Excel. He was a good player for us at times and at other times he hurt the team with bad shots and killing of ball movement. So many people have only the good things he did in thier memory. I remember all of it and not all of it was good.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

mavsman said:


> Please, stop with the overating of Nick Van Excel. He was a good player for us *at times* and at other times he hurt the team with bad shots and killing of ball movement. So many people have only the good things he did in thier memory. I remember all of it and not all of it was good.


And most of those "times" were down the stretch of ballgames, where he pretty much closed the deal for us the majority of the time with the big shot. I didn't say *anything* about his total value to this team, but I don't think you can deny his value in the clutch.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

mavsman said:


> Please, stop with the overating of Nick Van Excel. He was a good player for us at times and at other times he hurt the team with bad shots and killing of ball movement. So many people have only the good things he did in thier memory. I remember all of it and not all of it was good.


Um.. If I remember right, NVE was the player who killed the Blazers in the Blazers/Mavs series. And if it wasn't for him then the Blazers would have won game 7 and the Mavs would have been embarassed. I think NVE is a big reason the Mavs aren't winning some of teh games they should be. The guy is clutch, and you need a player like that on your team, one that isn't afraid to take the last shot.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Um.. If I remember right, NVE was the player who killed the Blazers in the Blazers/Mavs series. And if it wasn't for him then the Blazers would have won game 7 and the Mavs would have been embarassed. I think NVE is a big reason the Mavs aren't winning some of teh games they should be. The guy is clutch, and you need a player like that on your team, one that isn't afraid to take the last shot.


There you are proving my point, thank you. All anyone remembers is the one playoff series with Portland. And based upon that one series NVE is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Give me a freaking break. How about taking a look at his stats for all the other playoff series with the Mavericks when he shot about 30% and hurt the team badly. Finley and Dirk hit plenty of clutch shots for this team. I'll take either of them taking the last shot as both of them are much better shooters than NVE ever was.

And why don't you take a look at Dirk's stats in that series if you want to see who killed the Blazers. Nick was great in that serie yes, but Dirk was a monster in that series as well.


----------

