# nets 85 wolves 61



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

and this is the team the mavs are sposed to fear? :laughs:


----------



## Tristan (Jan 13, 2003)

:laugh:


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

It's not exactly like the Mavs have been scaring anyone


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

NJ had the 2nd best defense last year, compound that with an off night, and that will happen. I think your underrating NJ here abit.

-Petey


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> NJ had the 2nd best defense last year, compound that with an off night, and that will happen. I think your underrating NJ here abit.
> 
> -Petey



lol the nets suck. Let's be honest here. Put the nets in the west and they finish 6th or 7th easily. They haven't beaten the mavs in 2 years. Scoring 61 points against ANYONE is just terrible. The mavs played bad in both games and still broke 90 something. The twolves play bad and can't break 62. That just goes to show peeps how DANGEROUS the mavs are go nna be once they gel


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> It's not exactly like the Mavs have been scaring anyone


when a team shoots under 40 percent in 2 games and still averages 94 points That's something to "worry about" This is the second so called "midwest powerhouse" that can't even break 75 in a game. The spurs put up 72 the other night. [email protected] spurs and wolves both averaging 78 points a game. I just find it hilarious how peeps always down the mavs and make excuses for all the other teams


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> lol the nets suck. Let's be honest here. Put the nets in the west and they finish 6th or 7th easily. They haven't beaten the mavs in 2 years. * Scoring 61 points against ANYONE is just terrible. The mavs played bad in both games and still broke 90 something. The twolves play bad and can't break 62.* That just goes to show peeps how DANGEROUS the mavs are go nna be once they gel


T'wolves played against the Nets while the Mavs have played against the Lakers and GS. It was the best defensive performance in Nets history.

Last year Lakers were one of the worst teams in terms of points allowed per game. Nets defense is one of the best, accept it. The mavs averaged 92 points in the two games against the Nets---well below their season aveage. 

I am sure a healthy Nets team can compete for the 4th or 5th spot in the west. And although they haven't beaten the Mavs recently, they are much better off without Mutombo and with Zo. We will see what happens when the teams meet on January the 20th.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aurelino</b>!
> 
> 
> T'wolves played against the Nets while the Mavs have played against the Lakers and GS. It was the best defensive performance in Nets history.
> ...


lol go check the records last year. The nets were the ecf CHAMPS with a record that would have gotten them like 7th in the west. They can't shoot. They haven't beaten the mavs in 2 years. Just stop kid and you stop the nets basically. Peeps are obviously overrating the nets two trips in the finals into thinking they are good cause they are one of the most overated teams in the league. They win by dominating the east for 60 percent of hte season and sneaking up on a few TOP WC TEAMS and beating the lottery WC TEAMS.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

Spurs 1-1
Wolves 1-1
Mavs 1-1

the wolves played bad. Lost a game miserably.
the spurs also lost to one of the low tier teams. 
Till now the spurs and the wolves are not playing as well as they were supposed to play
But what's so great about the mavs? 

spurs 78 ppg, 81 opponent ppg
wolves 78 ppg, 85.5 opponent ppg
mavs 94 ppg, 99 opponent ppg

LOL @ the mavs giving up 99 points a game

they shoot under 40% and still get 94 and manage to give up 99. 



> That just goes to show peeps how DANGEROUS the mavs are go nna be once they gel


The same can be said about the other 2 teams.

I'm not saying that the other 2 teams are better then the mavs. Just saying that it's too early to speculate after just 2 games


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The lone wolf</b>!
> Spurs 1-1
> Wolves 1-1
> Mavs 1-1
> ...


yep the mavs may have given up more points but look at the wolves margin of loss. They are also allowing teams to shoot 44 percent from da field. mavs are allowing teams to shoot 45 percent. Wow what a big difference there. If a team can shoot 40 percent from da field and score 94 a game then that team is extremely dangerous. 

Let's look at the mavs opponents

The lakers
Golden State


The lakers are one of the better offensive teams in the league they gave up 109 to them. Against gstate they gave up 89. Hence the high points given up per game. If they play well against the jazz it'll drop even lower. THe mavs will never be a great one on one defensive team this year but they aint even put in their zone schemes yet. 


Let's check the spurs opponents

Suns
Nuggets

two of the worst shooting and scoring teams in the league so of course their points given up a game should be low. Does that mean they are playing good defense? Nope. But scoring 78 points a game is inexcusable


How about the wolves opponents? 


Milwaukee 
New Jersey

New jersey has never been a great scoring team. The bucks are gonna struggle as they have traded away all of their scoring and are going extremely young. 


It's not like the spurs and wolves have faced one good offensive team (lakers, kings, etc etc) which leads to the OPPG being really low


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> league. They win by dominating the east for 60 percent of hte season and sneaking up on a few TOP WC TEAMS and beating the lottery WC TEAMS.


What do you mean sneak up on TOP WC TEAMS?

They beat the Lakers, Wolves and Blazers 2-0 each last season and split with the Spurs and Suns. 

And are scoring 100 ppg and beating the mavs the only criteria for any team to be considered good?


----------



## Jacres318 (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't want to get in this argument, but Walker has ben here for almost two weeks. If anyone can use the haven't gelled yet excuse it's the Mavs. 

I want to go down the T'wolves roster.
pg Nash
Pg Cassel

Nash by a long shot

SG Fin
SG Spree

Fin by a long shot

SF Dirk
SF WAlly

Dirk ahead by lightyears

PF KG
PF WAlker

KG although they are two different styles of players

C Fortson
C Kandi Man

I'd take Fortson, because he's an elite rebounder an did great against Shaq(or better than Kandi ever could). Kandi is cocky, takes a lot of shots, when he can and still believes the #1 pick hype and that he's baby Shaq.

Jamison is 5x better than the wolves bench combined!

I'd take Delk and Best over Hudson, because they don't take all the shots and their whole rep isn't about one series! Remember he was playing Fisher, remember he made Bibby the most overrated player in all of sports.

Then the rest of the bench is a joke on the Wolves side, Hoiberg? Madsen(great dance moves)? hassel? Trent? 

MAdsen is solid, but isn't nothing to brag about.

I'm still wondering why people are high on them as a paper team.

Considering half the team has a history of taking half of their teams shots and crying about it when they don't.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 13, 2003)

Good point but I think spree has a lil bit of edge than Fin.


----------



## Jacres318 (Jun 8, 2003)

all star in west vs. no all star in east? Fin can take it to the hole better and has a better shot. Spree is a better defender, but Fin isn't a bad one himself.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> lol the nets suck. Let's be honest here. Put the nets in the west and they finish 6th or 7th easily. They haven't beaten the mavs in 2 years. Scoring 61 points against ANYONE is just terrible. The mavs played bad in both games and still broke 90 something. The twolves play bad and can't break 62. That just goes to show peeps how DANGEROUS the mavs are go nna be once they gel


If you are using your logic of whom beats whom over how ever many years, what does that make the Lakers compared to the Mavs? The Nets have taken the Lakers in the past few years, but the Mavs are what against the Lakers? 

-Petey


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> If you are using your logic of whom beats whom over how ever many years, what does that make the Lakers compared to the Mavs? The Nets have taken the Lakers in the past few years, but the Mavs are what against the Lakers?
> ...


cmon let's be real. The mavs play the lakers better than the nets do. Remember the finals against the lakers 2 years ago? w hat a snooze fest. They had no chance whatsoever. The nets are the most overrated team in the nba. Kidd has to do EVERYTHING FOR THAT TEAM. No one else can create their own shot. They've also had some of the worst performances i've ever seen. m ad overrated team. Put them in the west and they do nothing


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> 
> cmon let's be real. The mavs play the lakers better than the nets do. Remember the finals against the lakers 2 years ago? w hat a snooze fest. They had no chance whatsoever. The nets are the most overrated team in the nba. Kidd has to do EVERYTHING FOR THAT TEAM. No one else can create their own shot. They've also had some of the worst performances i've ever seen. m ad overrated team. Put them in the west and they do nothing


See, thing is I was using your logic to prove a point.

Btw check your pms.

-Petey


----------

