# Is Denver the Worst Team Ever?



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

After watching tonight's game in which the C's played horribly but still won going away, I think the 2002-2003 Denver Nuggets are one of the very worst teams ever to play in the NBA, right up there with the Sixer expansion team that went 9-73. And if it weren't for Nene Hilario, who is an exciting player to watch, they would also get my vote as one of the most boring NBA teams of all time.

I think it is time to seriously consider contraction. And that would also allow the league to contract the officiating staff, which tonight missed about 5-6 obvious travelling calls. I just have to shake my head in amazement at how truly bad NBA officiating can be, particularly when the officials lose interest in the game.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

excuse me? basing this on one game? lets remember the 40+ blowout you had when playing the wiz? are the celts the worst team ever? maybe. 

worst. justification. ever.

this was one friggin bad game. we have played tough for months now, beating some great teams (suns, spurs, pacers, blazers) and rarely getting blown out. we were without howard too, our leader and top scorer. we already have won 10 games, which is more than anyone would have guessed at the beginning of the season. and we are at least overacheiving, which is better than the underacheiving celts. 

what a terrible thread.

i wish basketballboards.net would contract this thread.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

What a terrible thread? What a terrible team. If tonight was "overachieving" then the Nuggets really are on the all-time bad list.

And I have no illusions about this year's Celtics. They are too small and not physically tough enough to avoid being pushed around. If they make it past the first round of the playoffs, I'll be surpised.

But knocking the Celtics won't make the Nuggets any better.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

congrats on missing the point entirely. you are basing everything on one bad game.

i shall do the same using your game vs the wiz earlier this year and claim the celtics the worst team this year. 

it doesnt work. besides, the celtics did not play well tonigt either. if you want to use this game they are a bottom 5 team.

"But knocking the Celtics won't make the Nuggets any better."

um...arnet you accusing me of exactly what you are doing? kinda weak. but again, had you READ my post and understood it, you would have known better of what my point was. re-read what i wrote again please.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

I read your post. One bad game? The Nuggets have lost 30. Sure the Celtics were blown out, by the Wizards, the Nets and twice by the Mavs. But 30 losses?? THIRTY?? Yes, the Celtics SUCK. And they still beats the Nuggets by 20 without breathing hard.

The nuggets have no talent, except for Nene. I will say one thing: you are the first person to ever use the word "overachieving" to describe any team with which Juan Howard has been associated.


----------



## CelticsRule (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> I read your post. One bad game? The Nuggets have lost 30. Sure the Celtics were blown out, by the Wizards, the Nets and twice by the Mavs. But 30 losses?? THIRTY?? Yes, the Celtics SUCK. And they still beats the Nuggets by 20 without breathing hard.
> 
> The nuggets have no talent, except for Nene. I will say one thing: you are the first person to ever use the word "overachieving" to describe any team with which Juan Howard has been associated.



You really think the Celtics suck. They might not be an NBA Championship caliber team but they will make the playoffs as a 3rd 4th or 5th seed unless they completely colapse. The Celtics aren't bad if you don't remember they made the Eastern Conference Finals. They might not be the best team but they aren't bad.


----------



## Jehuisthere (Jan 12, 2003)

So the Nuggets are one of the worst teams ever, yet have a better record than the Raptors and Cavs...hmmm......that makes a lot of sense


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

*Nuggets vs Raptors and Cavs*

Well the Raptors and Cavs are pretty bad too. However, the Raptors have been hard hit by injuries and the Cavs have spent the year dreaming about ping pong balls rather than basketballs, although I've been reading lately that the lad wants to drive his Humvee someplace other than Cleveland. (Did the Cavs seriously believe that David Stern would let them have LeBron?)

Denver has no player even remotely as good as Vince Carter (when he is healthy) or Ricky Davis.

I would not even compare Denver to the 15-win Celtics team that M.L. Carr coached, led by the immortal Dino Radja. David Wesley and Rick Fox were on that team, each of whom is a competent NBA basketball player.

Maybe I was wrong about one thing-- they are indeed overachievers. For this collection to have won 10 games is amazing. Maybe it has something to do with (1) the thin air in Denver, (2) some favorable hometown officiating, and (3) the number of other bad teams in the league. Or all 3 of the above.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>celticsrule0873</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You really think the Celtics suck. They might not be an NBA Championship caliber team but they will make the playoffs as a 3rd 4th or 5th seed unless they completely colapse. The Celtics aren't bad if you don't remember they made the Eastern Conference Finals. They might not be the best team but they aren't bad.


Well perhaps "suck" is a bit too strong, although with the exception of Pierce they certainly sucked last evening. I have posted here in detail what I think the Celtics' problems are.

Yes they will make the playoffs but will not likely go very far.


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

*Lakers*

no, the lakers are the worst team ever


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

One thing that cannot be argued is how hard the Nuggets work on defense and on offensive rebounding. Being without Howard, their leading scorer did not help their cause last night.

If the Celtics were without Pierce, I can only imagine how they'd do! 

The Celtics are in trouble their next 6 games before all star break - without Walker. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Celtics go 1/5 as their opponents are pretty tough in that stretch.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

I would not be surprised to see them go 1-5 either, but they match up well against Orlando and Detroit, so they might win a couple there. And who knows about Seattle?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> I would not be surprised to see them go 1-5 either, but they match up well against Orlando and Detroit, so they might win a couple there. And who knows about Seattle?


Usually they match up well, but without Walker, I'm not so sure. They didn't set any scoring records against the Nuggets - in fact, without the 45 points by Paul, their offense looked anemic. Most of those teams coming up can score - while the others are great defending teams and it makes me wonder about the outcome more than usual.

Speaking of schedules, after the all star break, the Celtics go west for a 6 game road trip - I HOPE for their sake, they have Walker. If they don't, it is an automatic "L". They play like 10 out of 12 games in February on the road!


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

The Nuggets are a pretty bad team. They sucked last night they had a million wide open shots, and didn't get most of them. We didn't play defense, our offense was ballhog of the night, and missed key guys like Walker, Delk, and Battie playing 100%, belive it or not, Delk and Battie are _very_ important to this team.

If the Celtics played without Pierce they would have gotten 27 more shots, and if they made 10 of them they would have won.

The Celtics always play to their opponents level, if its a great team we'll play great, if its a bad team we'll play as they do. Pierce on the other hand didn't want that to happen last night with him, he said so before the game, and he made an impact from the first quarter, to the end of the game.

I can't wait for Walker to come back, but if he's not 100%, I don't want him back.

Last but not least, pass the freaking ball to Baker. Once again he went 1-1. :upset: :upset: Its rather funny, the Celtics want third scorer now they got one but don't use him...


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> The Nuggets are a pretty bad team. They sucked last night they had a million wide open shots, and didn't get most of them. We didn't play defense, our offense was ballhog of the night, and missed key guys like Walker, Delk, and Battie playing 100%, belive it or not, Delk and Battie are _very_ important to this team.
> 
> If the Celtics played without Pierce they would have gotten 27 more shots, and if they made 10 of them they would have won.
> ...


I agree with you and most especially on the Vin Baker issue. If the Celtics brass and coaching staff wanted a post presence, then they should inform the rest of the team to pass the ball inside to Vin more than once a game!


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you and most especially on the Vin Baker issue. If the Celtics brass and coaching staff wanted a post presence, then they should inform the rest of the team to pass the ball inside to Vin more than once a game!


Well the thing is....OB.

He doesn't like Baker (in Barton's editorial I wrote the same thing, check the sticky for more info ), OB wanted Rodney back, because he can shoot the three, and lets be honest OB doesn't know any thing else but the 3. As much as I love OB for focusing on defense, its not him thats doing it, its Harter (or whatever his name is). OB even mentioned that he doesn't want Baker, but Rodney. And has signed Sundov because he can shot the "3". They need to give the ball to Baker, they need to rest Walker and Pierce, otherwise the Championship is farther away then we tought. And its not gonna be here with Twan and Pierce playing together.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> 
> 
> <b>Well the thing is....OB.</b>
> ...


OB must be a frustrated 3 point shooter, you think? :laugh: I mean maybe he is thinking about the Houston years when they had 3 point shooters - BUT OB seems to forget, the ball went into the Paint FIRST.

Your points about resting Walker & Paul are correct and that is one more fallacy being force-fed to fans from OB. If he thinks he can get by without resting them - he will be sadly disappointed.

Some will say that the Bulls had no inside presence - I BEG to differ! They had Cartwright and Horace Grant for the first 3 trophies - and the last 3 trophies, Mike & Pippen had Longley and Rodman to help with rebounding and they bamboozled the league the last 3 rings.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

I agree they should get Baker more involved, but he did pile up fouls at an astounding rate. I think it would behoove Baker to learn what is and what isn't allowed. He gets so many fouls that are obvious to the officials. He doesn't even try to disguise them. He pushes people out of the way to get rebounds. The early fouls he got vs. the Nuggets were debatable, but most of the time, there's no question. He costs the Celtics turnovers.

Also, it would have been silly of them not to keep feeding Pierce. If you have a guy that hot, you keep going to him until he either cools off or the other team figures out how to defend him, neither of which happened. He wasn't a ball hog. OB said he kept running plays for him. Plus, Pierce hasn't had that many good shooting nights this season. I think this will build his confidence.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

I admit that Vin hasn't done well with the fouls, but that happens when you don't get enough PT.

As for Paul being a ball hog - that is <b> pure hog wash!</b> 

When the coaching system runs plays for you - go for it. But the Celtics also were risking an injury to Paul on a game of not huge importance. Maybe the other teammates would hit if they had enough touches - we'll never know.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

To tell you the truth, I don't care if we shoot 75 3s a game, as long as they are open and we don't force them. I hate seeing Pierce run on a fast break and shoot a 3. :upset:

Walker and Paul are very young right now, and they will be able to play some big minutes but later on whats gonna happen? They'll be tired to death.



> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> Some will say that the Bulls had no inside presence - I BEG to differ! They had Cartwright and Horace Grant for the first 3 trophies - and the last 3 trophies, Mike & Pippen had Longley and Rodman to help with rebounding and they bamboozled the league the last 3 rings.


As I have said many times, Mike didn't win it by himself he always had a good team by his side (yes he is the best player ever but he didn't do it by himself, and no one else did either). Longley might have not been a great player but hey he was someone who Mike and co. could depend on. Rodman was a Madman (that names fits him better), he rebounded like no other player, he averaged like what? 16 rebounds per game? The guy was a monster. 

The C's need someone like that, someone who will not only score, but will rebound. Thats the main reason (apart from shoting 3s) the Celtics are losing, I can bet that the Bulls killed us in both games they have won on the the glass. We are not a running team, but yet no one is there to rebound.


mrsister, Pierce's game (% wise) was awsome, and I know was hot, but do we really wanna have Pierce be the whole offense? Pierce was sweating after 2 minutes into the game, sure he had 45 points and everything, but vs the Nuggets it should be a one man show.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> I read your post. One bad game? The Nuggets have lost 30. Sure the Celtics were blown out, by the Wizards, the Nets and twice by the Mavs. But 30 losses?? THIRTY?? Yes, the Celtics SUCK. And they still beats the Nuggets by 20 without breathing hard.
> 
> The nuggets have no talent, except for Nene. I will say one thing: you are the first person to ever use the word "overachieving" to describe any team with which Juan Howard has been associated.


1 bad game recently. in the past few months we have played many games and almost all were tight late. we just are young and cant finish. we are a bad team but we play better than expected with the talent we have. you keep hiding behind this fact because it really hurts your argument. 

we are overacheiving. everyone admits it. we play harder than any other team and give 100% every night. even your celts cannot claim that. juwan has been a great leader and class act, despite going from dallas to our team. no need to knock him. you have plenty of poor players and underachevers on your own team you should look to criticize before taking cheap shots at others. 

and if you think the celtics didnt 'breathe hard' last night you are kidding yourself. the game was still in doubt until pierce went off. you guys played equally poorly and were saved by pierce, which is great for him and the celts. but both teams played very bad. do not excuse your own team from this.

to basically compared your team now to our team is just wrong and just an easy way out. it means nothing as we are rebuilding and have a solid plan for the future. everyone knows this and we could have folded. but we dont. every game we play tough.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: Nuggets vs Raptors and Cavs*



> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> Well the Raptors and Cavs are pretty bad too. However, the Raptors have been hard hit by injuries and the Cavs have spent the year dreaming about ping pong balls rather than basketballs, although I've been reading lately that the lad wants to drive his Humvee someplace other than Cleveland. (Did the Cavs seriously believe that David Stern would let them have LeBron?)
> 
> Denver has no player even remotely as good as Vince Carter (when he is healthy) or Ricky Davis.
> ...


the cavs have more talent that us yet lay down every damn game and get killed most nights. we are the opposite. we arent even in the same tier as the cavs and have the least talented roster in the league by far. 

the raps still play bad. they have no talent without VC but still dont compete like they should. your excuses just dont work. thin air? officiating? beating bad teams? all wrong. just excuses. trying to justify the impossible.

and yes we are better than the 15 win celtic team. for one we will win more than 15 and 2, we are playing better. you keep looking at the record, and while its part of it, its all you keep hiding behind, knowing that if you took into consideration all factors, it would kill your side.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> One thing that cannot be argued is how hard the Nuggets work on defense and on offensive rebounding. Being without Howard, their leading scorer did not help their cause last night.
> 
> If the Celtics were without Pierce, I can only imagine how they'd do!


thank you! great point! again, convieniently forgetton by john. 

fact is we arent even close to the worst team this year, let alone all time. 

but if john wants to make all nba historical projections by reading the standings in his local paper, thats good for him. lol.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> The Nuggets are a pretty bad team. They sucked last night they had a million wide open shots, and didn't get most of them. We didn't play defense, our offense was ballhog of the night, and missed key guys like Walker, Delk, and Battie playing 100%, belive it or not, Delk and Battie are _very_ important to this team.
> 
> If the Celtics played without Pierce they would have gotten 27 more shots, and if they made 10 of them they would have won.
> ...


yes, that is true - our jump shots are HORRIBLE. by far our weakest aspect of the team.

but the debate isnt whos better - celts or nuggets. duh. 

its all about johns uninformed or possibly ignorant statements he made based on one game. its so easy to do so while hiding behind your own teams performace (why? i dunno) but its very very wrong.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't think the Nuggets are a the worst team in history, but having only one double diget (sp?) scorer is horrible. I think its a very bad team, but I like that you are building on Defense first. The offense will come, you'll get a high (or low depends how you look at it) draft pick and will be in the sweepstakes for a TOP FA.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

*Sorry Nugzfan*

Sorry Nugzfan but these guys are really bad. They keep games close by holding the ball for 23 seconds and then taking a wild shot. That's why they rarely score 80 points per game. How may 24-second clock violations did they have the other night? At least 5. 

The fact remains that they went against a very mediocre Celtics team that was playing poorly and still lost by over 20. And they were held to 75 points again last night by the Bucks.

Maybe they give 100% every night. But 100% of nothing is still nothing. Maybe they have a sound rebuilding plan. Well, they need one.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> 
> mrsister, Pierce's game (% wise) was awsome, and I know was hot, but do we really wanna have Pierce be the whole offense? Pierce was sweating after 2 minutes into the game, sure he had 45 points and everything, but vs the Nuggets it should be a one man show.


Well, you have your answer. Against the Magic today, he did everything else. Sure, he got 27 points, but he didn't have to, and his shot selection was quite good (9 of 15). 13 assists, 13 rebounds, and 3 steals. He created offense for other people. Against the Nuggets, he needed to score because nobody else could get anything to drop, and he wasn't having any trouble witht he defense. Today, he got other people easy baskets, and the team shot 53 percent (would have been higher if Kedrick could have gotten his open looks to fall... he's just not a three point shooter yet). With Walker out, he's really showing what he's made of. Selfish? I don't think so. Plus, he only attempted a single three. 

Nice production from Grant Long, too - 6 points in 13 minutes. He didn't have a rebound, though, which is surprising, but he's slowly getting worked into the rotation. I think he may adjust a lot quicker than Baker.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

That was a great game, I loved this game of Pierce, he did everything. Points, assists, rebounds, steals, block, AND had a TO or two.  It was the best game I have seen out of him. He played great. Thats why he has been named Eastern Conferance Player of the week today. While I am at it I might as well have the awards

Tommy-Award: Pierce
Aqua-Award: Pierce (a tripple double always gets you the aqua-award) But Waltah had some pretty important threes at the end.
Aqua-Rating: A hight 8/10, I would have loved to see McGrady, Hill and Twan in the game. BTW good luck with your first kid TMac.


Long, well he's a veteran, I love him, he might have not had a rebound, but he played great defense, and he hustled, did you see him just take away the ball from Kemp??? He got his hands on the ball and just ripped it away from him. Baker, is old, but he's still young, he's only 31. And Baker did never play defense, while we got Long because of it. I am thankful for him.


----------



## CelticsRule (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> That was a great game, I loved this game of Pierce, he did everything. Points, assists, rebounds, steals, block, AND had a TO or two.  It was the best game I have seen out of him. He played great. Thats why he has been named Eastern Conferance Player of the week today. While I am at it I might as well have the awards
> 
> Tommy-Award: Pierce
> ...



Great game by the Celtics, hopefully they can keep up this streak. Long has been surprising, but I still want Vin to break his season-long slump. 

:topic: Nice sig Aqua :grinning: :yes: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>celticsrule0873</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:topic: I consider it a masterpiece.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

It was a great game by Pierce, as well it should have been with no Grant Hill or TMac playing. The Orlando team sucks without those 2 guys, just like the Celtics would suck without their 2 main guys.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> It was a great game by Pierce, as well it should have been with no Grant Hill or TMac playing. The Orlando team sucks without those 2 guys, just like the Celtics would suck without their 2 main guys.


Well, Jeryl Sasser made up for one of those guys, with his career night (26-10). And he played excellent defense as well.

If the C's can split with Detroit, they may survive Twoine's absence reasonably well. They will probably lose to the Pacers on Saturday, but then they have the Hornets (away) and Sonics (home). They can beat both those teams without Twoine, who may be back before then anyway.

And to get back to the topic of this thread, I see that the overachieving Nuggets, playing at home against the Nets last night, scored a whopping 66 points and held their turnovers down to a mere 32. I'm sure that after that performance, Jason Kidd's agent will be on the phone to Kiki today, trying to cut a deal for next year.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, Jeryl <b>Sasser made up for one of those guys, with his career night</b> (26-10). And he played excellent defense as well.
> ...



Sasser can't shoot, he can only put the ball in the bucket when he is within 3 inches or on a fast break. Sasser is a disaster when it comes to shooting but he can rebound. Career night? Hmmmm, I wonder who was guarding him.

:naughty: :naughty: 
The Denver Nuggets try hard and their fans deserve better, Big John; let's not antagonize them - okay?


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

Right, Sasser can't shoot, except last Sunday. He made several 3's and shot over 50%.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> Right, Sasser can't shoot, except last Sunday. He made several 3's and shot over 50%.


I'm glad he finally (this is his 2nd year) had <b>ONE</b> good shooting night - because his 26% fg is about as bad as it can get for this level.:|


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

Yes, but if he hits a few more shots he will be closing in on Pierce. Seriously, I think Sasser is a good player who just needs some minutes to become a solid NBA contributor. I would not mind seeing him in Green. He is a much better defender than the great T-Mac.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> Yes, but if he hits a few more shots he will be closing in on Pierce. Seriously, I think Sasser is a good player who just needs some minutes to become a solid NBA contributor. I would not mind seeing him in Green. He is a much better defender than the great T-Mac.


I take it you don't see Sasser too much. :grinning:


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

No I don't. I'm sure that he has been awful alot of the time. But he dopes not get the minutes either.

Loook at J.R. Bremer. I saw him in the Shaw's summer league, where he completely outperformed Omar Cook. But Bremer's shooting was awful eary in the year and he had a string of DNPs. It was not until he got some consistent minutes that he was able to show what he can do.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> No I don't. I'm sure that he has been awful alot of the time. But he dopes not get the minutes either.
> 
> Loook at J.R. Bremer. I saw him in the Shaw's summer league, where he completely outperformed Omar Cook. But Bremer's shooting was awful eary in the year and he had a string of DNPs. It was not until he got some consistent minutes that he was able to show what he can do.


That may be true for JR, but this is Sasser's <b>2nd year</b> in the league. You can ONLY imagine how bad he was last year. Check his fg%. 
I would trade him to the Celtics for EWill any day... but he wouldn't get any time for the Celtics either, playing behind Paul - and you would shudder every time he came in the game, absolutely shudder in horror. :grinning:


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

Well I've been shuddering in horror every time the Celtics as a unit take the floor. I thought the game against Washington was bad, but last night was worse.

But even after their truly Denver-esque performance last night, if I were a betting man I would take the Celtics and the points tonight against Indiana. I think the refs will pay the Pacers back for the Artest incident and Reggie Miller's subsequent comments.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> Well I've been shuddering in horror every time the Celtics as a unit take the floor. I thought the game against Washington was bad, but last night was worse.
> 
> But even after their truly Denver-esque performance last night, if I were a betting man I would take the Celtics and the points tonight against Indiana. I think the refs will pay the Pacers back for the Artest incident and Reggie Miller's subsequent comments.


You could be right about the Indiana game, as you're getting to play them without that defensive maniac, Artest. Some teams get all of the luck! Ooops, the Lakers also get to play them without Artest. :grinning:


----------

