# Game Thread: 11.20.04 Wizards @ Nets



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

<center><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td>







</td><td width=20><center>@</center></td><td>







</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3></td></tr><tr><td colspan=3></td></tr><tr><td><center>4 - 4</center></td><td width=20></td><td><center>2 - 6</center></td></tr></table>

8:00 PM on CSN

Season series tied 0 - 0


<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td>







</td><td><center>- Key Match: SF -<br><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font><br><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></center><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td width=34><p align="right">23.3</p></td><td width=50><center>*PPG*</center></td><td width=34>21.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr><tr><td width=34><p align="right">8.8</p></td><td width=50><center>*RPG*</center></td><td width=34>10.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr><tr><td width=34><p align="right">2.4</p></td><td width=50><center>*APG*</center></td><td width=34>3.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr><tr><td width=34><p align="right">1.0</p></td><td width=50><center>*SPG*</center></td><td width=34>0.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr><tr><td width=34><p align="right">0.4</p></td><td width=50><center>*BPG*</center></td><td width=34>0.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr><tr><td width=34><p align="right">41.3</p></td><td width=50><center>*MPG*</center></td><td width=34>42.5</td></tr><tr><td colspan=3><font color=#DFDFDF>|</font></td></tr></table></td><td>







</td></tr></table></center>


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Should be interesting -- worst offense (80.9 PPG for NJN) versus worst defense (104.5 PPG given up for us). Which one gives? On the plus side, Nets are averaging losing by -11.5 points a night, second worst in the league. We so should be able to take this one, but games against bad teams always worry me as a Wizards fan.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Uh their's no way New Jersey is going to be able to score enough points to beat the Wiz.

Boston only allowed 86ppg coming into todays game and the Wiz dropped 100 on em through 4.

New Jersey in my mind would have to totally shut down our offense to win. I think we could get by with only having 3 good quarters and still winning this game.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Keep in mind, New Jesey was visited by Seattle last night, a team that was averaging 103.5 points on the season and had only finished in the double digits twice all year. Although Seattle won pretty easily it seems, they only managed 79 points in that game.

That's not to say it's impossible to go off on them; we should just be prepared for the possibility of one of our lesser offensively-dominating games. And if they drag us into their style of play and we only score somewhere in the 80's, our bad defense may let them be right in it.

Overlooking a bad team when we aren't exactly a championship contender ourselves is a quick way to pick up a loss in what should be a relatively easy win.


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

We can be a good defensive team, we just need to learn how to keep an even keel throughout the game and not give up one huge quarter. We should win this game but a loss wouldn't be too suprising because we dont seem to be a good road team.

I think the keys to the game is to force Jefferson to take outside shots and to shut down Zo, if those two things happen, which is easily possible, i dont think the nets can win.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

The 2 things the Nets got going is RJ and Zo and we got good defenders for both in Haywood and JJ. 

We should win by 10 points or so.

Eric Williams worries me some but we gotta win this game.


----------



## eYeKey (Nov 18, 2004)

This should be an easy 'W' which why this game scares the begeezous out of me. Hopefully we can leave East Rutherford with a record > .500 :|


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

I'm scared of that Zorac Planavic guy, he can really shoot the 3:|


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

NetsDaily Preview 

Should be another ugly Nets game. Nets have not been taking care of the ball, but their defense has improved every time out.

I'll be there tonight, so I should have some pics tomorrow.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> NetsDaily Preview
> 
> Should be another ugly Nets game. Nets have not been taking care of the ball, but their defense has improved every time out.
> ...


Always liked the pictures, so I look forward to it  Enjoy yourself, maybe you'll even get to see some decent scoring.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Blake has officially been activated, and is able to play tonight. We all pretty much knew it anyways, but now it's certain. Profit was sent to the IR to make room for him.

Also, on a non-game note, guess who is on the front of NBA.com? It is in fact a Wizard, bizarre as it may seem. Jamison made it, although on the sidebar as opposed to the main story. I'll take what I can get though.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I don't know whether that first quarter was good or bad, so let's take a look ...

Good: overall shooting at 50%, Jamison not getting off to slow start, Hughes with the nice pass on the break, can't imagine the Nets playing better than they did on offense (I know, only three players scored, but they were still good) yet we're still up, also can't imagine Zoran keeping up his torrid play for the rest of the game.

Bad: 57% shooting for them, horrible choice letting Arenas pick up a third foul, Haywood again getting in foul trouble, too gamble happy -- against such a bad offensive team, all you need to do is play solid, normal defense and you should be able to win.

25-23 us after one.


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

Half Wizards 52-43

We got to see a little of Steve Blake, and i didn't like it. He definately is rusty, that 3 pointer looked really ugly, and he also should have cut into the lane instead of taking it! He'll get better i'm sure though.

This Game seems like Hughes' best ever in terms of passing and taking the right shots.


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

i agree, Eddie should've taken Arenas out after he got his second foul, too much gambling on D though New Jersey had a lot of turnovers in the first half, good to see Blake get some run in, he look rusty on that J though so far so good


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>twinz2gether</b>!
> Half Wizards 52-43
> 
> We got to see a little of Steve Blake, and i didn't like it. He definately is rusty, that 3 pointer looked really ugly, and he also should have cut into the lane instead of taking it! He'll get better i'm sure though.
> ...


Is it a coincidence that the Wizards are up 9 at the half in a game where Gilbert Arenas sat on the bench for much of the half with foul trouble? I think not.


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it a coincidence that the Wizards are up 9 at the half in a game where Gilbert Arenas sat on the bench for much of the half with foul trouble? I think not.


i think u should be more concerned with your magic being up only 2, 46-44 to a 6 man Indiana roster:yes:


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

All in all, I'm happy so far. Only 9 minutes for Arenas, 11 for Haywood, and they shot 49% on the half, yet we're still up 9.

I'm all aboard on the improved efforts of JJ and Hughes. Both are starting to do what we need and want them to do, which can only lead to good things. 

Tough to say much on Blake; he barely played, and in his couple of minutes he did nothing of note in that time. The one shot he took was ugly, but that doesn't say all that much to me.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it a coincidence that the Wizards are up 9 at the half in a game where Gilbert Arenas sat on the bench for much of the half with foul trouble? I think not.


I've been carefully studying the messages over the past month or so, and I think I've cracked the code -- you are not an Arenas fan. Am I right? :grinning:


----------



## zoomCrypt (Nov 7, 2004)

*man.keep feeding jamison tonight*

.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I don't really get that call on Arenas. A player who flops is trying to draw a charge based on little to no contact. How can you flop, which Arenas clearly did, and get called for a block?

Ah well; Jamison has made back to back threes to make me forget about it already.


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

I'm gonna call it right now, Arenas has a HUGE 4th quarter.


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

Haywood is having a horrendous game... He needs to go up stronger, dunk it!


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

Haywood is killing us on offense right now 3 bricks and 1 shot blocked


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Is it just me, or is Haywood getting bit by the Etan bug? For the past few games, whenever he has caught the ball down low, it has been a guaranteed shot attempt regardless of what is going on around him. I know we want him to be aggressive, but 11 shot attempts in 18 minutes is a bit much don't you think? It's not a problem so much when he's hitting 50%+, but when he's not, he needs to cool it down some.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

maybe we should put in peter john ramos... atleast he willl make zo come outside


----------



## zoomCrypt (Nov 7, 2004)

he should just not shoot and give the ball back to antawn.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

crap we are trailing to the god damn nj nets


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Heh it's like I said, the Nets aren't a good team, but we aren't exactly tearing the league apart. We should be able to win, but it's far from a given. I actually predicted a loss to New Jersey in "next eight games" thread for just this reason.

That said, even with a less than stellar effort so far, we're still winning by three in the early fourth. I think it'll go down to the wire.

On a side note, anyone else think Buckhantz's head will explode if he has to endure another moving screen no-whistle?


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> On a side note, anyone else think Buckhantz's head will explode if he has to endure another moving screen no-whistle?


:laugh:


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Why isn't Hughes in? Has he even played in the fourth? Peeler has been decent tonight, but we should have the starters in.

EDIT: As I hit post, in he comes. Should've been a few minutes earlier, but better late than never.

DOUBLE EDIT: And in about a minute and a half, Hughes has a mini 6-0 run all by himself, including <i>not</i> driving wildly on a break and in turn getting himself three points out of the play. Keep it up man.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Good defense by Haywood and a nice jumper by Jamison leave us up by 7 with a minute left. New Jersey with the ball. Cut out the gambling and just play tough defense for 62 seconds and we should be able to wrap this thing up.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

tough d. no running wildly for steals and the win is ours


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

GAME OVER!


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

One of the only good stats from this game
Gilbert Arenas: 28 mins, 1 TO!


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

I don't think I have ever heard the words Moving-Screen called so much:laugh:


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Thumbs up to Hayes on tonight's game. It was quiet, so quiet that I didn't even realize until looking at the box score, but he did some nice work on offense. 14 points isn't that out of the ordinary for him, but doing it on better than 50% shooting? Good work on that.

Williams, Mourning, and Planinic managed to go 19-30 from the field for 44 points. I can't imagine RJ getting much better help than that until Kidd is back, but we managed to win anyways. Maybe everyone was right when they said the Nets just aren't good enough on offense to keep up with us. I mean, 86 points on 44% shooting is practically an explosion for them (specifically the percentage).

Arenas only got 28 minutes (felt like half that to me), but he wasn't all that bad despite the underwhelming numbers. Didn't make any real mistakes on offense, put up 5 assists and 3 boards, and hit his free throws at 7-8, including some late when it counted. With how well Hughes and Jamison were scoring, we didn't really miss his point all that much.

The play of Hughes and Jamison doesn't really need an explanation. Both were excellent. Jamison seemed to take better shots than usual, or more specifically, less not so good shots. Hughes looked like he made a real effort on the two things he's faulted for, bad shots and wild breaks. I don't think there was a single break that he could've passed on that he didn't, and I can't recall a single shot he took that had me shaking my head afterwards. He did kind of vanish from late in the second to halfway into the fourth, but he was huge when we needed him the most.

Another solid game for JJ as well. He only got about 10-11 minutes of burn in the second half after getting 21-22 in the first for whatever reason, but he looked very good out there for the second straight game. Active on defense, not going overboard on offense, brining the ball up against pressure, and just doing all the little things we want him to do.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>adarsh1</b>!
> maybe we should put in peter john ramos... atleast he willl make zo come outside


The more PJR plays the worse we are as a team.

I wouldn't be surprised if he only plays in blowout losses for ther est of the year.


----------



## byrondarnell66 (Jul 18, 2004)

tough call as far as "player of the game" between Hughes and Jamison. Jamison was more consistant the whole game, but Hughes really came through at the end with a big 3, key steals, freethrows. I give the edge to Jamison though


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Hughes has been pretty damn clutch this season. He definetly shines in the 4th quarter.

The good thing about our offense is that we have enough scoring to win games even when one of our main guys isn't scoring. Out of Arenas/Hughes/Jamison, if two of them are having a great game than we usually have a shot at winning.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Jamison edged out Hughes for me. Jamison was doing his thing pretty much throughout the game, while as I mentioned Hughes didn't seem to do anything (good or bad) for some twenty minutes in the middle of the game. My little rule is that it is player of the game, not player of the fourth quarter (although Hughes was pretty solid in the first 15 minutes or so as well).

Without Hughes' second half of the fourth I admit we might not win the the thing, but without Jamison in the the first 3.5, Hughes probably never even gets the opportunity to lead us to victory. Both had their hand deep in the victory though, no doubt about it.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

What sustained us tonight was our bench. Dixon and Hayes were big tonight. 

Arenas and Haywood were terrible all night. Mourning roughed up brendan and being attacked on defense just took Arenas out of the game. 

Hughes impressed me for the 1st time this season. I mean really impressed me. He took over the game down the stretch he had a favorable match-up. Eric Williams couldn't contain him at all. hughes gambles a ton for steals but he doesn't put the D in jeopardy that much when he gambles though. 

I just love Jamison's game, he moves so well off the ball that he always seems open knowing the defense is geared towards stopping him. When his jumper is clicking you can forget it. 

We are a good team I don't know why anyone doesn't believe it. We are gonna beat alot of people this season. 

We should be able to take care of the Raptors on Tuesday. 

Kwame coming back is on the horizon which will keep us out of the lulls offensively. 


JJ is finally carving out a role for himself he's become a defensive energy guy capable of switching off and guarding anyone.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

We need to do a poll for Player of the game maybe the 1st 5 reply's or something because I don't wanna give MJG so much power.  

Just kidding man.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I don't mind Hughes gambling so much anymore, not when you consider he's the BEST in the league at it. He leads the league in steals by a wide margin, and it leads to easy baskets. I also know Hughes play good one on one D so it's alright.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> We need to do a poll for Player of the game maybe the 1st 5 reply's or something because I don't wanna give MJG so much power.
> 
> Just kidding man.


Heh I'm open to the idea. I just started it last year as something fun to do, and nobody seemed to say much about it, so I kept it as is.

If anyone wants to offer their thoughts on the player of the game or the honorable mentions, just make a note of it in a post after the game has ended (nothing during the game). I'll wait a bit before updating the thread, and will take into account everyone who posts' feelings. If people participate enough, maybe we can do some kind of actual voting system.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> 
> Heh I'm open to the idea. I just started it last year as something fun to do, and nobody seemed to say much about it, so I kept it as is.
> 
> If anyone wants to offer their thoughts on the player of the game or the honorable mentions, just make a note of it in a post after the game has ended (nothing during the game). I'll wait a bit before updating the thread, and will take into account everyone who posts' feelings. If people participate enough, maybe we can do some kind of actual voting system.


You always on point with your Player of the game selections. At season's end based on those picks we'll name a BBB Wizards forum player of the Year. 

You doing it right .


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Hm, well perhaps this -- I continue to do them as I have, and after it is posted (usually some 15-20 minutes after the game), if people disagree they can let it be known. If I pick Jamison and 3-4 people come in here to say it should be clearly be Hughes, I'll be willing to change it. Share the power


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

More photos


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

I wonder that was an accident, or he did it on purpose? i say accident probably.


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

I think you have to give player of the game to Hughes, i'm stunned that you didn't think so also. He pretty much singlehandedly put the game away, and had a great game.


----------

