# Mavs are better than last year because...



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season. 

Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> ...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season.
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


you forget they were special last year,especially at this time of the year. i think the addition of walker and jamison has messed up their timing out there. they had plenty of firepower in the big 3 and now they have to give up shots to accomadate the new guys. last years team was a real longshot to win it all, i think this years version is even longer.


----------



## Nashdaddy25 (Jan 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> ...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season.
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


 What about Minny? Minny usually plays dallas good! Dallas would be the best team in the league if they could stop somebody, which they cant. they were better last year because of Raja bell and adrian griffin off the bench to play some d. Van exel was better off the bench than Jamison is. Dallas is a very good team, i say number 5 in the west(which mean 5th in the NBA) behind minny, SA, LA, and Sac right now, but you never know if they make a deal for a defender how good they can be this year. adding Wallace would be better than Jamison, but still isnt a very good defender, and would he be coming off the bench too? that would spell trouble for the organization i think.


----------



## 1652 (Dec 16, 2003)

Is this a joke thread???

Is it April 1st???

Dallas.... Good.... in the same sentence??

:jump:


----------



## CIRELLO (Jan 16, 2004)

no but ur post is a joke.:laugh::laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Mavs are better than last year because...*



> Originally posted by <b>Nashdaddy25</b>!
> 
> 
> but you never know if they make a deal for a defender how good they can be this year. adding Wallace would be better than Jamison, but still isnt a very good defender, and would he be coming off the bench too?


I think you dont know what you are talking about. Rasheed Wallace is one of the better man and post defenders in the league


----------



## 1652 (Dec 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>CIRELLO</b>!
> no but ur post is a joke.:laugh::laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Good way to use your first post.

*edited: No personal attacks please*

Must be a *allas fan.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


I disagree. I think their defense looks noticably worse than last season. Last season, they debatably could have survived their porous defense.

This season, I don't think they can. If they can't tighten it up on D, they have no chance of winning three straight series against top Western teams.


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

On paper Dallas is a muuuuch better team, they just need a bit more time to get used to playing together.
And no their defense hasn't improved one bit, nor does it need to be.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

Allas Mavericks are not better. and only because they lost NVE. That guy was crazy and he was the only one that I was scared from and he was the one that beat Sacramento and took Allas to the next series. He was shooting like crazy. Otherwise Sac would have won without CWebb. SO I don't see Mavs getting any better because they have no *D*efense. If Philly can score 122 pts you know you don't have any defense. Allas won't get any further than the first round. Unless they do a trade and get a defender. ( and oh yeah I forgot to put *D* before allas and you should know why)


----------



## Mattsanity (Jun 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> ...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season.
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


Seriously, are you on crack? Do you literally not realize that the Mavericks have had VERY CLOSE GAMES against teams clearly inferior to them? If they can't blow out mediocre teams, then don't say "championship" and "Mavericks" in the same sentence.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> ...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season.
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


So what if they have a winning record against the big teams, that is too small a number of games to give an accurate picture of how good the Mavericks are.

Also, most of those games against the Kings, Lakers, and Spurs they won because their shooters were hot, not because they played good defense. Their shooters are not always hot, and it is pretty much dumb luck that they got hot for the right games. The fact that their defense is still horrible and their scoring is on average much worse (despite a couple of good performances against great teams) means that they have a much worse shot at winning a championship.


----------



## ChowYunSkinny (Aug 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> Allas Mavericks are not better. and only because they lost NVE. That guy was crazy and he was the only one that I was scared from and he was the one that beat Sacramento and took Allas to the next series. He was shooting like crazy. Otherwise Sac would have won without CWebb. SO I don't see Mavs getting any better because they have no *D*efense. If Philly can score 122 pts you know you don't have any defense. Allas won't get any further than the first round. Unless they do a trade and get a defender. ( and oh yeah I forgot to put *D* before allas and you should know why)


wow, thats so original ...lets bring up old jokes ...youre so original sacramento *edited*...


----------



## CIRELLO (Jan 16, 2004)

1652 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChowYunSkinny</b>!
> 
> 
> wow, thats so original ...lets bring up old jokes ...youre so original sacramento *edited*...


but isn't it true that Allas has no *D*efense. Even in the ESPN they said that. I forgot his name but when one of them said lets talk about Dallas Mavs he said don't say dallas but Allas because they don't defend. now I don't really know what you're talking about sac queen. I only heard Shaq say that and he can because he's the MDP in the league. I don't care if he says that. but an old joke, from allas fans.


----------



## ChowYunSkinny (Aug 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> 
> 
> but isn't it true that Allas has no *D*efense. Even in the ESPN they said that. I forgot his name but when one of them said lets talk about Dallas Mavs he said don't say dallas but Allas because they don't defend. now I don't really know what you're talking about sac queen. I only heard Shaq say that and he can because he's the MDP in the league. I don't care if he says that. but an old joke, from allas fans.


i know dallas has no d...i wasnt arguing that...i was just saying how original it is of you to use allas; like no one has heard of that before...& since you copied an old joke, i copied shaq's old joke about the sacramento queens in jest....

now back to the original topic...dallas is not a championship caliber team right now because of their defense , but i think there is no true clear cut championship team currently...every team is having problems...
1) Lakers - Injuries to Kobe, Shaq, Malone
2) Spurs - Offense needs major improvement (i.e. Losing to Hawks)
3) Minnesota - Szerbiak, Hudson, & Olowokandi on injured list...they are doing well without them now but how will the team mesh together when they come back...will there be enough balls to go around such as szerbiak taking shots from the other 3...(the same problem dallas has with walker though he is doing well the last couple games)
4) Sacramento - I think the Kings are playing the best right now but I think they need a healthy Chris Webber to have legitimate chance & who knows when Webber will get hurt again...last time he got hurt by just walking, who knows what will happen this time (pulling a hamstring sitting on the bench???)..


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The Mavericks also gave up 115-120 points to New York. Their defense is in tatters.


----------



## Nashdaddy25 (Jan 13, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Mavs are better than last year because...*



> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you dont know what you are talking about. Rasheed Wallace is one of the better man and post defenders in the league


he may be decent, but he still isnt gonna help a team that plays no d? i said he is better than jamison, he would be the best defender on dallas, but thats not saying much.


----------



## ChowYunSkinny (Aug 28, 2003)

...dallas's defense has also gotten worse this year because it is hard to zone when bradley has barely begun coming into the rotation due to back spasms & dirk has to play center ( there is no point in playing zone without bradley; dont know why nelson still does it)...also our best two defenders are out...najera has been injured or played hurt (should be back next week) and josh howard has missed the last week or two...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Mavs are better than last year because...*



> Originally posted by <b>Nashdaddy25</b>!
> 
> 
> he may be decent, but he still isnt gonna help a team that plays no d? i said he is better than jamison, he would be the best defender on dallas, but thats not saying much.


He's better than decent. He's one of the best post defenders in the league. Duncan and Garnett have said he's one of their toughest defenders, he's held Duncan to 10 points or less twice and he defends those guys without much double-teaming help, which is a huge benefit to the whole defense.


----------



## A Seal Clubber (Jun 20, 2003)

I was watching that Sixers vs. Mavericks game and while it is true that the the Mavs' defense was horrible for most of the game, when the game was on the line in the last few possessions of the fourth and overtimes, they had several excellent stops. If they had hit their free throws at their average percentage the game would have been theirs. I think another reason for the Sixers' high scoring was Glenn Robinson's hot shooting. THat guy just couldn't be stopped.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> ...they are playing better against the elite teams. This is the most important thing for the Mavs because the last 2 years they would kill every no name team but then get outplayed by Sacramento, Lakers, and Spurs in regular season.
> 
> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


I agree with this a lot. I think, an important "ingredient in the championship soup" would be experience, which the Mavericks now have. They've now been mentioned as an elite team for two years, and though they have new additions, they still have the core of the run. 

It's rare that a team would be elite, than get two *more* excellent players without shaking up the big 3. I think by April all of the bugs (road record, letting teams back in the game) will be worked out, and the Mavericks will be a machine.


----------



## Cometsbiggestfan (May 14, 2003)

> Their record doesn't show it, but they have a better shot at winning a championship.


Seriously, don't be ridiculous. The Rockets have a better chance at the championship than Dallas and we all know Rockets wont win.


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mavs are better than last year because...*



> Originally posted by <b>rainman</b>! ... i think the addition of walker and jamison has messed up their timing out there. they had plenty of firepower in the big 3 and now they have to give up shots to accomadate the new guys. last years team was a real longshot to win it all, i think this years version is even longer.


I think this comes closest to hitting the nail on the head. Not to sound too fuzzy, but the bad defense is as much a byproduct of the fact that they are more a collection of players than an actual organic team out there. Nobody knows their role anymore. 

On a related point, I think it's a very bad idea to have your secondary players duplicate the strengths and weaknesses of your stars. "Gee, if we were real good with three guys capable of putting up 30 on a night, but D. wasn't their strong suit, we'll be great with five." It simply doesn't work like that.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

I read in a recent Sports Illustrated that if the Mavericks or the Kings won the title, it would be the first time ever a team ranked below 15th in the league in defensive FG% won. And every title winner since the 92'-93' Bulls has been in the top 11 in FG% defense. The Mavericks and the Kings are near the bottom this season.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

The Mavs didn't have defense last year and they made it to the Western Conference Finals. The Mavs defense will also get better as the team gets more experience together. The reason I believe this team can pull it together is because of the intelligence and team oriented players they possess. The new additions of Walker and Jamison are definitely better than Lafrentz and Van Exel, its just a matter of time before they get it together. 


One of the reasons might be the coach. I have been saying since last year that they should get rid of Nellie, but no one wants to believe it. He has so much talent but can't get them to play defense. If this team actually tried on defense they could be a top 10 defensive team. 

The Mavs have intelligence(Nash, Walker, Jamison, Nowtizki), athleticism(Nowtizki, Jamison, Finley, Howard), and team players at every position. They should be 10 times the defensive team that they are and with the right coach they would be.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

the thing is the lakers and kings aren't good defensively. You wanna argue that? I can prove you wrong. The mavs are a better team this year. If the mavs had the same team as last year they wouldn't even have a winning record. nve is shooting 35 percent and is only averaging 12 points as a STARTER. raef is on ir and is out for the year. GRIFFIN IS ON IR. walt williams is out of the league. najera is on ir. 

the mavs lineup would look something like this


Dirk
Josh Howard
Fin
NVe
Nash


they'd get KILLED on the boards and would give up 120 EVERY NIGHT


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

I feel that at this time last year we were better. But after the Sheed trade which should happen, we will be better than last year by the end of the year. Last year we aere better because everyone had been in the system for a couple years but now we got 2 new players and had to adjust. The Mavs will be better than last years Mavs by seasons-end is what I am saying.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

compsciguy's and merc's posts basically sum it up.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Zach</b>!
> compsciguy's and merc's posts basically sum it up.


now that bradley is back it'd look like this


bradley
dirk
howard
fin
nash

nve off the benc. I don't like it at all.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> The Mavs didn't have defense last year and they made it to the Western Conference Finals.


The Mavs barely got past the first round, after being up 3-0, once Portland unleashed Zach Randolph, due to Dallas' insane defensive weakness inside. It took Nowitski getting hot *just in time*, in the fourth quarter of Game Seven that they trailed heading into, for Dallas to even survive that round.

The Mavs lucked out that the Kings lost Chris Webber in Round Two, taking away the one player on the Kings who could have really destroyed Dallas inside.

And then they lost in Round Three.

What in all of that inspires confidence? Do they have the ability to make an elite power forward get injured again? And won't they need that to happen two or three times?

Lastly, their defense looks *worse* this season.

So, in my opinion, saying that they made it to the Western Conference Finals with little defense last year is pretty misleading. It suggests that they have a chance to win a championship without defense, and the fact is, they don't. Not even a small chance


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

the mavs took the spurs to six games (one 4th quarter collapse away from the FINALS)

with dirk hurt, bradley hurt and eshmeyer HURT


They started

Raef
walt williams
fin
nve
nash

raef only played 24 mins a game and when that happened? the mavs were FORCED TO PUT NAJERA AT CENTER for the last 3 games of that series


against the blazers the MAVS GOT POUNDED ON THE BOARDS. that's why they almost lost. that's not a prob anymore. Mavs are second in the league in rebounding. THEY EVEN GRABBED 60 BOARDS IN A WIN AGAINST THE WOLVES EARLIER THIS YEAR IN WHICH THEY WON THE GAME EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOT 37 PERCENT.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> the mavs took the spurs to six games (one 4th quarter collapse away from the FINALS)
> 
> with eshmeyer HURT


does he count?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> the mavs took the spurs to six games (one 4th quarter collapse away from the FINALS)


How were they "one fourth quarter collapse from the Finals?" They would also have had to win *another* game against the Spurs.



> with dirk hurt, bradley hurt and eshmeyer HURT


That's fine but one can also argue that since the Blazers had Scottie Pippen, Arvydas Sabonis and Dale Davis all hurt in Round One, and Dallas still only barely beat the Blazers, that Dallas would not have survived the first round had the Blazers been healthy.

I think Dallas benefited more than they were hurt by injuries, in general.

Dallas was a good team, and an excellent offensive team...but inability to make stops, especially inside, does not provide much hope of being able to win three consecutive series against Western teams. Dallas could beat any one team in a series, by being hot from the perimeter...but they're not going to be hot enough to overcome little to no defense in *three straight* seven-game series.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> How were they "one fourth quarter collapse from the Finals?" They would also have had to win *another* game against the Spurs.
> ...



lol. They were hot against the kings and blazers. Pippen played. So did sabonis. So did davis. I'm sorry there's no way you can tell me any of those guys are MORE IMPORTANT than dirk. The mavs were playing a 6 7 sf and a 6 8 sf at CENTER AND PF against the spurs and HOLDING THEIR OWN. Why is the mavs "D' the only d brought up? The mavs were 13th in the nba in team d last year and almost in the top 10 in opposing teams field goal percentage last year. the lakers were 23rd in team d. The kings were like 18th. The kings are TERRIBLE DEFENSIVELY. so are the lakers. Go check any boxscore and see how the lakers get TORCHED by opposing pgs. PAYTON CAN'T GUARD ANYONE and the lakers still can't stop the pick n roll. But of course the mavs "D' seems to be all peeps focus on. Last year the mavs prob was REBOUNDING. not "D' look at tonights game. They clampled the blazers when they had to. gave up 69 in the first half. and only gave up 36 points in the 2nd half. 36! NOW THAT'S "d' ONCE NAJERA GETS BACK this team will get even BETTER defensively.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> The reason I believe this team can pull it together is because of the intelligence and *team oriented players* they possess. The new additions of *Walker* and Jamison are definitely better than Lafrentz and Van Exel, its just a matter of time before they get it together.


:no:

Walker is the least team-oriented player in the NBA. He thinks he can shoot, but he can't, and his assist totals while impressive, don't make up for his many missed shots.

And merc_cuban I think it's funny that you crow about giving up 36 points in the second half and don't mention that they gave up 68 points in the first half. You almost lost to a Blazers team that is playing horribly right now, and Ruben Patterson of all people had a monster game.

You are very correct that LAST YEAR your defense was underrated, and that's a big part of why you went to the conference Finals. THIS YEAR you are in the bottom THREE in opposing team's field goal percentage,ahead of only the Clippers and the Magic. Worse than the "terrible defense" Kings and MUCH worse than the "torched by opposing PG's" Lakers. Your kind of defense gets you eliminated in the first round.

Maybe if your team hadn't been such a major disappointment so far this year, people would be focusing on other teams' defenses. But since you are a disappointment and the Kings aren't, people are focusing on Dallas.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

and the reason for that is because the mavs played alot of zone last year and since they traded for walker and jamison LATE INTO camp they didn't put all the schemes in until the past few weeks. They h eld denver to 88 points last night. the spurs only average 85 a game against em. They show signs of being a good team. who cares about the first half? the mavs CLAMPED THE BLAZERS FOR THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF AND STEPPED UP THEIR "D" WHEN THEY HAD TO. they have won 4 straight and 3 on the road in a row now. pLAYING MUCH BETTER BALL. the defense will come in time. bradley just came off of ir. so did howard. n ajera is still on ir. those three guys are key to the mavs playing so well defensively and if the mavs can get sheed they really get better on that side of the ball


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

So many excuses. Walker and Jamison have never been good defenders in their entire careers, has nothing to do with learning a new system. The season is more than halfway over, if they were going to learn how to play D they would know how to by now.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

excuses? when your teams best defenders are out then yeah you're gonna have probs. when you have fin miss 2 weeks, nash miss 2 weeks, dirk miss 2 weeks, delk miss almost a month, howard miss 2 week,s najera miss most of the season, bradlye miss most of the season then YEAH you're gonna have chemistry probs as well as defensive probs because you haven't PLAYED together that much.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Being a Mavs fan, I don't think it's even right to think we can be a title team with Shawn Bradley at Center. I know it's all about team pride, but I have to admit, we got a few lucky breaks in the first two rounds. The fact that we needed a lucky break being up 3-0 is absurd, but it happened because Randolph arrived, and started pounding the post, and its almost like we could do nothing to stop it. 

Then in Round 2, I think we were pretty evenly matched. Though Webber was out, he was injured late in the series, so that's not an excuse, though it certainly didn't hurt our chances of winning.

After Dirk went out against the Spurs, we showed serious heart throwing out that line-up and getting 2 wins. I have no logical answer as to why the eventual NBA Champs could lose to that line-up. My hopes were raised, thinking, "next June, when we have Dirk back, we will be more experienced, and if we sign a Center, we will be alright." Then, we wait until pretty late to even talk to Zo, and he goes to the Nets. Then, the two Twans show up, and I'm perplexed as to why we need two 3's when we drafted howard, and didn't have the glaring weakness there. 

After all of that ranting, I'm saying, we should've kept the same roster, with a few touch-ups (a decent post defender), and built on last year's success. But instead we waited two months into the season to see another new roster develop. We could've prevented this by just playing it safe with a FA center, and if we would've known about Howard in August, starting him at the 3. 

But, I still love the Mavericks:

Here's to getting Rasheed, because he's the help in the middle we need, for the mid-range game we're stuffed with....


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> Here's to getting Rasheed, because he's the help in the middle we need



:cheers:


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> Being a Mavs fan, I don't think it's even right to think we can be a title team with Shawn Bradley at Center. I know it's all about team pride, but I have to admit, we got a few lucky breaks in the first two rounds. The fact that we needed a lucky break being up 3-0 is absurd, but it happened because Randolph arrived, and started pounding the post, and its almost like we could do nothing to stop it.
> 
> Then in Round 2, I think we were pretty evenly matched. Though Webber was out, he was injured late in the series, so that's not an excuse, though it certainly didn't hurt our chances of winning.
> ...



naw man with that lineup from last year we'd be in SERIOUS TROUBLE. raef out for the year. nve been hurt and is only shooting 35 percent this year. Griffin been on ir for the rockets all year. The only player I see us missing is bell. The mavs didn't expect howard to be good this fast. NO ONE did. Getting jamison, fortson, delk and walker for basically NVE, RAEF, AND JIRI was a good deal for the mavs. Especially if they can get sheed.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> naw man with that lineup from last year we'd be in SERIOUS TROUBLE. raef out for the year. nve been hurt and is only shooting 35 percent this year. Griffin been on ir for the rockets all year. The only player I see us missing is bell. The mavs didn't expect howard to be good this fast. NO ONE did. Getting jamison, fortson, delk and walker for basically NVE, RAEF, AND JIRI was a good deal for the mavs. Especially if they can get sheed.


Who's to say any of this would've happened? And then, if we do go with that logic, Jiri has turned into a great player for the Celtics, and he'd do the same in big D then, more than filling in for Griffin.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> lol. They were hot against the kings and blazers. Pippen played. So did sabonis. So did davis. I'm sorry there's no way you can tell me any of those guys are MORE IMPORTANT than dirk. The mavs were playing a 6 7 sf and a 6 8 sf at CENTER AND PF against the spurs and HOLDING THEIR OWN. Why is the mavs "D' the only d brought up? The mavs were 13th in the nba in team d last year and almost in the top 10 in opposing teams field goal percentage last year. the lakers were 23rd in team d. The kings were like 18th. The kings are TERRIBLE DEFENSIVELY. so are the lakers. Go check any boxscore and see how the lakers get TORCHED by opposing pgs. PAYTON CAN'T GUARD ANYONE and the lakers still can't stop the pick n roll. But of course the mavs "D' seems to be all peeps focus on. Last year the mavs prob was REBOUNDING. not "D' look at tonights game. They clampled the blazers when they had to. gave up 69 in the first half. and only gave up 36 points in the 2nd half. 36! NOW THAT'S "d' ONCE NAJERA GETS BACK this team will get even BETTER defensively.


Um... the Kings were FIRST in opposing team's FG% last season. FIRST. Not 'like 18th'. The stats are easily available for reference online. Dallas was a respectable 12th, the Lakers were 17th. Sacramento's been playing fairly poor defense this season (though still better than Dallas), but they're picking it up as of late, plus they have the legacy of playing good defense - 9th in defensive FG% 2 years ago, 1st (by a wide margin -. 07) last season. A Mavs fan calling the Kings a terrible defensive team? As Bart Simpson would say, "The ironing is delicious."


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

That is why we are trading for Sheed smart one. We have all the offense you will ever need. BUT we do make defensive stops when needed. Finley CAN get big and D you up in clutch times. So can Nash. It's not we have no D it's we are inconsinsent at playing D.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> 
> lol. They were hot against the kings and blazers. Pippen played. So did sabonis. So did davis.


And Dirk played against the Spurs. Just not the whole series, like the three Blazers against the Mavericks. Dirk played more against the Spurs than Pippen or Sabonis were able to play against the Mavericks.



> I'm sorry there's no way you can tell me any of those guys are MORE IMPORTANT than dirk.


Are they more important? No, but Dallas *barely* won that series with all three out significant amounts of that series. Therefore, there's an excellent chance Dallas *doesn't* barely win that series if the Blazers are healthy.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> Um... the Kings were FIRST in opposing team's FG% last season. FIRST. Not 'like 18th'. The stats are easily available for reference online. Dallas was a respectable 12th, the Lakers were 17th. Sacramento's been playing fairly poor defense this season (though still better than Dallas), but they're picking it up as of late, plus they have the legacy of playing good defense - 9th in defensive FG% 2 years ago, 1st (by a wide margin -. 07) last season. A Mavs fan calling the Kings a terrible defensive team? As Bart Simpson would say, "The ironing is delicious."


yep i honestly believe the kings are a MUCH poorer defensive team. they are 21st in the league in rebounding. that is TERRIBLE. They are also 23rd in blocks per game. My bad. I forgot about that. Kings were first. I apologize for that statement. The kings as a whole are a much worst defensive team than the mavs. The kings haven't played the lakers at full strength. They havent played the spurs. They've only played the mavs once. They've played the wolves twice and gave up alot of points. They really haven't faced alot of the top teams yet man. their stats are a lil misleading.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> No, but Dallas *barely* won that series with all three out significant amounts of that series. Therefore


They won though didn't they?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> 
> Then in Round 2, I think we were pretty evenly matched. *Though Webber was out, he was injured late in the series, so that's not an excuse*, though it certainly didn't hurt our chances of winning.


*boggle* Game Two is "late in the series" in your eyes?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Zach</b>!
> 
> 
> They won though didn't they?


Yes, I don't believe I argued that Dallas lost.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> *boggle* Game Two is "late in the series" in your eyes?


Sorry..that was a lapse...I pictured a game 5 for some reason...thanks for the (albeit smart-alleck) correction...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Mavs look pretty and rich, but they are not much on the floor.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry..that was a lapse...I pictured a game 5 for some reason...thanks for the (albeit smart-alleck) correction...


You say "smart aleck," I say "amazed." That's generally what "*boggle*" means to me.

But if it was just a mental lapse, than I'm not amazed. Those things happen.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> And Dirk played against the Spurs. Just not the whole series, like the three Blazers against the Mavericks. Dirk played more against the Spurs than Pippen or Sabonis were able to play against the Mavericks.
> ...


The spurs just "barely" beat the suns. Who is to say they wouldn't have lost if marbury wasn't playing hurt? You act like the mavs are the only team that struggled. The mavs had the hardest path tot he finals last year. 2 DEEP TEAMS and one great team. 


pippen and dale davis played in game 1. sabonis didn't
dale davis and sabonis played in game 2. pippen didn't
dale davis and sabonis played in game 3. pippen didn't
dale davis played in game 4 pippen didn't
dale davis pippen and sabonis played in game 5
dale davis, pippen and sabonis played in game 6
dale davis pippen and sabonis played in game 7

you wanna try gagin?

davis played in EVERY GAME

pippen missed 3 though. sabonis missed 1 GAME. 


and dirk is a 2 time allstar and 2nd team all nba player. he was the mavs leading scorer and rebounder. Dirk was averaging 25 points and 12 boards in the playoffs. there is no way you can convince me that the mavs didn't need dirk against the spurs.

the spurs faced the suns with marbury hurt
the spurs faced the lakers with george out, fox out, and shaq and kobe playing hurt
the spurs faced the mavs with dirk missing the last 3 games of the series


all of those series went to six games and you're talking about the mavs FACING INJURY RIDDLED TEAMS? lol


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> You say "smart aleck," I say "amazed." That's generally what "*boggle*" means to me.
> ...


Indeed they do. Do thess circumstances merit a nickname in that signature Minstrel?


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> 
> 
> Who's to say any of this would've happened? And then, if we do go with that logic, Jiri has turned into a great player for the Celtics, and he'd do the same in big D then, more than filling in for Griffin.


raef knee was bad when the celts got him. ainge knew it. he didn't care cause he HATES WALKER. mavs don't need jiri. they got enough swing players already. having walker gives the mavs 18 points 9 boards and 5 dimes a game. Delk is giving the mavs about 8 more points off the bench. Jiri is good but no way is he matching that output


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

All I know is we are starting to 'gel' now which is great. I say we finish out around 50-55 wins.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

no doubt man. nash's injury might have helped this team greatly. BEST IS FINALLY becoming the backup pg i thought he could. 7 dimes tonight


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> 
> pippen and dale davis played in game 1. sabonis didn't
> dale davis and sabonis played in game 2. pippen didn't
> ...


No. I felt sure you understood the concept of "minutes played." But, evidently, to you, playing 1 minute of a game means the player was healthy and contributed as normal.



> davis played in EVERY GAME


First of all, wrong. Davis did not play Game Seven.

http://www.nba.com/games/20030504/PORDAL/boxscore.html

See that big "DNP" across from his name?

Secondly, he played *9 minutes* of Game Six.

So, saying that Davis played in "EVERY GAME" is clearly wrong *and* totally misleading. He essentially missed two games.



> pippen missed 3 though. sabonis missed 1 GAME.


And Pippen played 7 minutes in a fourth game. He played 74 minutes total in the series, which is about *two games* worth of minutes.

Sabonis played 86 minutes total in the series, which is maybe two and a half games of minutes, including only 7 minutes in one game and 9 in another.

Nowitski played 123 minutes against the Spurs.

So, going back to my original statement that Nowitski played more against the Spurs than Pippen or Sabonis played against the Mavericks, we have:

Pippen: 74 minutes < Nowitski: 123 minutes

Sabonis: 86 minutes < Nowitski: 123 minutes

So, would *you* like to try again? Maybe this time getting your facts right?

Oh, incidentally, in going back through the box scores, I noticed something else. The Blazers were also without *another* starter, Derek Anderson, for *five full games* (Five DNPs).

So the Blazers were essentially down two starters (Pippen and Anderson) for about five games each and down two key players (Davis and Sabonis) for about six games combined (around two for Davis and four for Sabonis).

Injuries are part of the game, and other teams benefited from them too, so I'm not arguing that the Blazers *deserved* to move on or that Dallas didn't. I'm just saying that the Mavericks' playoff run, last year, was not a great test of ability and therefore is not a good argument for saying that Dallas can overcome a terrible defense "because they did it last year."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dre1218us</b>!
> 
> 
> Indeed they do. Do thess circumstances merit a nickname in that signature Minstrel?


What do you mean? My signature?


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> yep i honestly believe the kings are a MUCH poorer defensive team. they are 21st in the league in rebounding. that is TERRIBLE. They are also 23rd in blocks per game. My bad. I forgot about that. Kings were first. I apologize for that statement. The kings as a whole are a much worst defensive team than the mavs. The kings haven't played the lakers at full strength. They havent played the spurs. They've only played the mavs once. They've played the wolves twice and gave up alot of points. They really haven't faced alot of the top teams yet man. their stats are a lil misleading.


You're misintrepreting the rebounding statistics. Dallas is 3rd in rebounds per game, but they're also 29th in opponent's rebounds per game. So, while they grab a ton of rebounds per game, their opponents average more rebounds against them than any other team in the NBA. In contrast, Sacramento is 21st in rebounding, but only 13th in opponent's rebounds per game - they grab fewer rebounds than Dallas, but they also give up fewer rebounds to their opponents. The important rebounding statistic is rebounding percentage - the measure of how many more rebounds per game you grab than your opponent. What good does it do Dallas to grab 46 rebounds/game when their opponents grab 46 a game? That makes you average, not a great rebounding team.

The Mavs are in a 3 way tie for 14th in rebounding percentage with Golden State and New Orleans. The Kings are 17th. Not really a big difference, and the Kings are only missing their best rebounder.

Blocks? Who cares. Memphis and Cleveland are top 5 in blocks, and they aren't exactly defensive juggernauts. Dallas is 18th, Sacramento 23rd. Not a big difference, again.

FG% defense (the most important stat): Sacramento 23rd, Dallas 24th

Turnovers forced: Sacramento 14th, Dallas 17th

Looks like Sacramento and Dallas are both poor defensive teams, BUT Sacramento has the legacy of being a top 10 defensive team the two years prior. Dallas was actually better than their reputation would have indicated last season (though they had serious problems with big-time post players), but they weren't as good as Sacramento then, and they aren't any better now. And I'm not anti-Dallas by any stretch of the imagination - while they got VERY lucky in the 1st 2 rounds of the playoffs, I still believe that they would have beaten San Antonio if Nowitzki hadn't gotten injured - Games 4 and 6 were close enough that Nowitzki's presence probably could have swung at least one of them Dallas' way, and I'd like Dallas in a theoretical game 7 at SA after the two horrible choke jobs in Game 1 and 5 at SA.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> And I'm not anti-Dallas by any stretch of the imagination - while they got VERY lucky in the 1st 2 rounds of the playoffs, I still believe that they would have beaten San Antonio if Nowitzki hadn't gotten injured


That pretty much sums up my thoughts about Dallas' playoff run last year, too, though I would say that I think, with a healthy Nowitski, they would have reached Game Seven. I think Game Seven could have gone either way.

Dallas played San Antonio very well.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

well the mavs have won five in a row. Catching up to the spurs and wolves. If they beat the lakers and bulls they'll be the 3rd seed by sunday's showdown game with the kings. LOL


----------



## Rockstone (Jan 21, 2004)

Why would be big up the Mavs? The top four teams in the west are the Kings, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Spurs. The Lakers have missed Shaq, Karl, and Kobe and have a weak supporting cast. The Kings have missed Chris Webber and still top the league. The T-Wolves have missed 2 starters and their sixth man all year (Olowokandi, Szczerbiak, and Hudson). Dallas has had at least 4 all-star calibur players healty for the most part of the year and still can't beat mediocre teams. They should not be considered as a contender. They are not a better TEAM than last year. They are more TALENTED, but they're not a better TEAM than last year. The Spurs can tell you that a TEAM wins championships. Not necessarily talent.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rockstone</b>!
> Dallas has had at least 4 all-star calibur players healty for the most part of the year and still can't beat mediocre teams.


No, we have people playing through injuries unlike the Fakers. We have not had multiple 'role' players out at once unless you say Shawn Bradley and Finley. But we have been injured.


----------



## MavsPoke (Jan 21, 2004)

*MAVS SOS*

sagarin

Kings have 29th ranked schedule.
Mavs have 5th ranked schedule.

Kings are 8-4 vs top 10 teams.
Mavs are 10-7 vs top 10 teams.
That is 5 more games against top 10 teams for the Mavs, with 2 more wins and three more losses.

Also, note that the Spurs with the 22nd ranked SOS are only 2 games up on the Mavs and are only 5-10 against top 10 teams.

The Kings looks like the team to beat this year, but the Mavs are not as far behind as it appears. The Mavs started the season last year just as the Kings did. They were hot against the weakest competition in the league, but everyone was saying that the Mavs were pretenders. 

This year the roles are reversed, but the Mavs are still thrust in the role of pretenders.

Personally I think Minny looks like they will be the team to beat (aside from a fully healthy Laker club).


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rockstone</b>!
> Why would be big up the Mavs? The top four teams in the west are the Kings, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Spurs. The Lakers have missed Shaq, Karl, and Kobe and have a weak supporting cast. The Kings have missed Chris Webber and still top the league. The T-Wolves have missed 2 starters and their sixth man all year (Olowokandi, Szczerbiak, and Hudson). Dallas has had at least 4 all-star calibur players healty for the most part of the year and still can't beat mediocre teams. They should not be considered as a contender. They are not a better TEAM than last year. They are more TALENTED, but they're not a better TEAM than last year. The Spurs can tell you that a TEAM wins championships. Not necessarily talent.


the mavs are 2 and 0 against the spurs
1 and 0 against the kings
2 and 1 against the wolves
1 and 2 against the lakers


the spurs are 0 and 6 against the top teams in the west. 

u do the math


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Dallas is not mentally tough and doesn't play a lick for defense. You are not going anywhere missing those two things. Barkley mentioned also mentioned that during halftime with TNT.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> Dallas is not mentally tough and doesn't play a lick for defense. You are not going anywhere missing those two things. Barkley mentioned also mentioned that during halftime with TNT.


And what the heck does Barkley mentioning anything have to do with reality. Barkley is a Mavericks hater and has been for years. Barkley is a fat jerk who has said a whole lot of Maverick hating things over the last few years.

Did you also listen to the brilliant Barkley as he told all the other guys on the panel that the Lakers would win the game. He said that you are all wrong, you will see that the Lakers will win this game. More of his usual brilliance on display.

I guess somehow we were mentally tough enough to kick your Trailblazers butt the other night.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> And what the heck does Barkley mentioning anything have to do with reality. Barkley is a Mavericks hater and has been for years. Barkley is a fat jerk who has said a whole lot of Maverick hating things over the last few years.
> 
> Did you also listen to the brilliant Barkley as he told all the other guys on the panel that the Lakers would win the game. He said that you are all wrong, you will see that the Lakers will win this game. More of his usual brilliance on display.
> ...


I agree that Barkley can say some strange things but let's get real here. I don't buy that he is a Maverick hater and that he has been for years. He says things about the Blazers as well but you don't see me griping about it. Quit your whining about it...really pathetic. Just take a look at the past champions of the NBA. They all play above average defense at the very least. The Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, and on and on. They were all very good defensive teams and were mentally tough. Dallas doesn't have either whether you think so or not. Everyone knows this except Mav fan's I guess. And I never said the Blazers were a good team this year. So, I'm not sure what your last comment is really about except for being a total jackass. You are living on another planet if you think Dallas can hang with the likes of the Spurs, Lakers, T'Wolves, and Kings this year.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that Barkley can say some strange things but let's get real here. I don't buy that he is a Maverick hater and that he has been for years. He says things about the Blazers as well but you don't see me griping about it. Quit your whining about it...really pathetic. Just take a look at the past champions of the NBA. They all play above average defense at the very least. The Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, and on and on. They were all very good defensive teams and were mentally tough. Dallas doesn't have either whether you think so or not. Everyone knows this except Mav fan's I guess. And I never said the Blazers were a good team this year. So, I'm not sure what your last comment is really about except for being a total jackass. You are living on another planet if you think Dallas can hang with the likes of the Spurs, Lakers, T'Wolves, and Kings this year.


Go away little boy. You don't have a freaking clue whether the Mavs are mentally tough or not. And neither does fat *** Barkley.

Don't come over here quoting a moron like Barkley and pass it off as facts. The Mavs were the 12th best Opp FG % last year. For that matter they were in the middle of the pack in Opp pointer per game. Yet last year Barkley said that the Mavs were a horrible defensive team. This year has been a struggle but they have been working new people in and have been without two of thier best defensive guys for most of the year (Bradley, Najera).

Don't come over here spouting your B.S. and then get all sensitive when someone responds. Better yet just don't come over here.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> Go away little boy. You don't have a freaking clue whether the Mavs are mentally tough or not. And neither does fat *** Barkley.
> 
> Don't come over here quoting a moron like Barkley and pass it off as facts. The Mavs were the 12th best Opp FG % last year. For that matter they were in the middle of the pack in Opp pointer per game. Yet last year Barkley said that the Mavs were a horrible defensive team. This year has been a struggle but they have been working new people in and have been without two of thier best defensive guys for most of the year (Bradley, Najera).
> ...


It's obvious that the Mavs are not a mentally tough team and they don't play defense worth a crap. Face the facts chump, the Mavs need to make some moves or they are going nowhere. You must be blind if you can't see that. You have no inside force and very soft in the middle...you don't win titles shooting jump shots. 

I can come and go wherever I want to just like yourself. So, go blow smoke up someone else's a**!


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the Mavs are not a mentally tough team


Oh well since you put it that way you have really convinced me. Obviously I missed the NBA.com stat which measures mental toughness. How do they do that? Is that where they insert that metal bar into the brain stem which is hooked up to the NBA league office computer and run a series of mental toughness tests.

Once again, you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You are at least good for a nice laugh.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> Oh well since you put it that way you have really convinced me. Obviously I missed the NBA.com stat which measures mental toughness. How do they do that? Is that where they insert that metal bar into the brain stem which is hooked up to the NBA league office computer and run a series of mental toughness tests.
> 
> Once again, you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You are at least good for a nice laugh.


You obviously know very littel about NBA history. Take a look at past champions. They didn't rely on jump shooting to win title. The majority of teams also were very good defensively. Dallas has a lot of talent but too many of the same kind of players. You need to get off the Mav HOG for just one minute. I'm not the only one on this site who thinks this way. You are the definition of a HOMER without a doubt. What makes it worse is that you know very little about the NBA.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that Barkley can say some strange things but let's get real here. I don't buy that he is a Maverick hater and that he has been for years. He says things about the Blazers as well but you don't see me griping about it. Quit your whining about it...really pathetic. Just take a look at the past champions of the NBA. They all play above average defense at the very least. The Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, and on and on. They were all very good defensive teams and were mentally tough. Dallas doesn't have either whether you think so or not. Everyone knows this except Mav fan's I guess. And I never said the Blazers were a good team this year. So, I'm not sure what your last comment is really about except for being a total jackass. You are living on another planet if you think Dallas can hang with the likes of the Spurs, Lakers, T'Wolves, and Kings this year.


the mavs are 2 and 0 against the spurs
1 and 0 against the kings
2 and 1 against the wolves
2 and 2 against the lakers

Mentelly tough or not, you don't see teams saying I hope we meet the Mavs in the playoffs, especially in Dallas.


I don't know how many Mavs games you've seen but when its down to the wire and the Mavs need a stop, it happens... don't ask me why they don't do this the whole game but they do play D in dire situations.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> You obviously know very littel about NBA history. Take a look at past champions. They didn't rely on jump shooting to win title. The majority of teams also were very good defensively. Dallas has a lot of talent but too many of the same kind of players. You need to get off the Mav HOG for just one minute. I'm not the only one on this site who thinks this way. You are the definition of a HOMER without a doubt. What makes it worse is that you know very little about the NBA.


Wow, you are a joke. What do you think you are the amazing Kreskin?

So now, you not only know how tough the mind of all the Mavericks are
but you also magically can read my mind and know how much I know about the NBA.

Please tell me where I stated that the past champions were not good defensively. Also please show me the quote where I said that the Mavericks were the best team in the NBA and would win the championship. And while you are at it show me the quote where I said that the Mavericks were a good defensive team this year. You can't because I never said any of those things.

What I did say is that neither you nor Barkley has one single clue as to how tough mentally the Mavericks team is. I also said that
the current Maverick team is only now starting to come together
as guys get healthy and are learning to play with one another.

I no longer have any time to discuss this matter with someone as
immature as you.


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> . I don't buy that he is a Maverick hater and that he has been for years.


Barkley hates every team that he has never played on. He is biased against the Mavericks just like he is jealous and biased against the Celtics because we beat his a$$ over and over again for years. (Don't believe it well just listen to how much he has changed his opinion on Antoine Walker since he has left the Celtics. It has been a 100% change in opinion and Antoine is the same player on a different team. His game has changed a little but not enough to merit a 100% change of opinion.) Listen to him and you only hear him praise the same teams over and over again. Even if they change members.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> What I did say is that neither you nor Barkley has one single clue as to how tough mentally the Mavericks team is. I also said that
> the current Maverick team is only now starting to come together
> as guys get healthy and are learning to play with one another.
> ...


You are a Maverick HOMER plain and simple. Admit it. They can do no wrong in your book. And don't play the all high and might BS...it's sickening and makes you look like a real *****.


----------



## merc_cuban (Jan 18, 2004)

let's end this thread now

Mavs average more assists
Less turnovers
More boards
and have more players scoring in double figures than last years team. 


*closes thread*


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>merc_cuban</b>!
> let's end this thread now
> 
> Mavs average more assists
> ...


That is the makings of a better team.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Mavs are better than last year because...we have better defense.

Lets get this thread up and going again

2004/2005 Dallas >>> 2003/2004 Dallas.

Defense baby


----------

