<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">* Worst: 2003 New Jersey Nets. -Data: Finished 49-33, second seed in a weak East. Before losing in six to a less than classic San Antonio squad (featuring Stephen Jackson!), the Nets went six games with an OK Ray Allen-led (thanks to the commenter) Milwaukee team, swept the creaky Celtics, then swept the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time Pistons in the conference finals. -Best players: Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin, Richard Jefferson. -Worst regular players: Lucious Harris, Aaron Williams. -What clinched worst-place: Ridiculously lousy 16-25 regular-season road record, proof of ultimate mediocrity. -What almost kept them out of worst-place: Kidd was at the height of his powers? but nobody could shoot from the outside. Nobody.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">* Third-worst: 2002 New Jersey. -Data: Finished 52-30, top seed in the East. Before getting swept by the Lakers, the Nets went all five games and into double-overtime of Game 5 to barely survive young Indiana, wiped out the Baron Davis Charlotte Hornets in five and then knocked off Paul Pierce and Boston in six. -Best players: Kidd, Martin, Keith Van Horn. -Worst regular players: Kerry Kittles, Todd MacCulloch. -What clinched third-worst: Barely made the Lakers wake up during the sweep. (Maybe Shaq snoozed through Game 3, actually.) -Why not the worst: Actually had some tough teams to beat in the East.</div> Source
I never really thought about it before, but i cant think of a worse team thats been to the finals. At least they played pretty good defense those years. They just didnt have anyone that could score. I think thats BS that Todd MacCulloch was the worst player on the team. He had some good post moves and he had amazing hands. Its just too bad he got that planter fasceitous.
Well considering who they went up against its kind of unfair to put them there. But I can't think of a team worse.
Never thought of that before and know that you mention it they kind of are.But lately teams that have won championships have a dominate big man and the Nets didn't really have one. 2000 Lakers: Big Man:O'neal 2001 Lakers: Big Man:O'neal 2002 Lakers: Big Man:O'neal 2003 Spurs: Big Man Duncan 2005 Spurs: Big Man Duncan 2006 Miami: Big Man O'neal The Nets never had a dominate big man and stats show most of the time you have a dominate big man your most likely to win.
Yea, both Nets teams and the 76ers teams were probably some of the worst teams in the last 15 Finals.
<div class="quote_poster">Ed! Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">'99 Knicks are much worse than both of those teams.</div> I agree, the Nets team was a better overall team.
that knicks team had a latrell sprewell and allen housten in their primes, had a aging but still decent patrick ewing and larry johnson and a up and coming marcus camby.. and ewing didn't even play in the finals, they had a pretty well built team and im sure if there wasn't 50 games in the season they would of been high than the 8th seed. and there still the only 8th seed to make the finals.....
<div class="quote_poster">Ed! Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">'99 Knicks are much worse than both of those teams.</div> How so? Like stated, the Knicks had a much better offense led by Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell. Camby also led the way on defense. This is not even counting the fact that Patrick Ewing and Larry Johnson missed the Finals. The Nets couldn't even win a single game against the Lakers at full strength.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Nets couldn't even win a single game against the Lakers at full strength.</div> It was just impossible for the Nets to stop Shaq. We had big men, but O'neal was just too dominant to contain. He was just a monster. It always seem to be the Nets' problem, the lack of a solid big man. It's definitely the reason why we seem to underachieve a lot.
<div class="quote_poster">Kidd Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It was just impossible for the Nets to stop Shaq. We had big men, but O'neal was just too dominant to contain. He was just a monster. It always seem to be the Nets' problem, the lack of a solid big man. It's definitely the reason why we seem to underachieve a lot.</div> Lol, and I doubt an old Patrick Ewing would have done better.
the nets didn't really have a go to player though, jefferson was emerging, kittles would get hot every now and then, van horn would have to get hot, martain would play off kidd they didn;t have a play like housten or sprewell that they could say heres the ball go score 25+
The fact that we repeated as Finals contenders only proves we weren't. Plenty of one and no repeat teams that are made out to be pretenders. More I think about it, the more I believe the Pistons team of '04 was a fluke championship team. It's obvious they can't repeat or come close it. I think we're all in agreement that our '02, '03, and even '04 teams are better than our current team. And the fact that this team took the Cavs to 6 close games means that our '02, '03, '04 teams could've beaten them. So if we're that bad, Cavs are right next to us.
I agree. The Eastern Conference was pretty bad those years and someone had to go to the Finals. <div class="quote_poster">nextlevelgame Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So if we're that bad, Cavs are right next to us.</div> Yeah. This Cavs team will make it to the top 5 worst finalists pretty soon.
<div class="quote_poster">nextlevelgame Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The fact that we repeated as Finals contenders only proves we weren't. Plenty of one and no repeat teams that are made out to be pretenders. More I think about it, the more I believe the Pistons team of '04 was a fluke championship team. It's obvious they can't repeat or come close it. I think we're all in agreement that our '02, '03, and even '04 teams are better than our current team. And the fact that this team took the Cavs to 6 close games means that our '02, '03, '04 teams could've beaten them. So if we're that bad, Cavs are right next to us.</div> Why are the Pistons a "fluke" championship team? They actually won a championship - something the Nets haven't done - went to Game 7 against the Spurs in the Finals the very next year, and have been in the Conference Finals for 5 straight years.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Lol, and I doubt an old Patrick Ewing would have done better.</div> Patrick Ewing was one of the best defensive big men of all time. Of course he would have done better than a rookie in Jason Collins a sophomore in Kenyon Martin, or Aaron Williams. Plus the Knicks defense was just better overall. Just about everyone on the team played pretty tough defense. So that means the Knicks defense wouldn't have allowed 27 PPG from Kobe Bryant on 51% shooting. The Nets also didn't have enough support on offense. Basically, they conquered a weak Eastern Conference and dominated in the Finals.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Lol, and I doubt an old Patrick Ewing would have done better.</div> Patrick Ewing would have given Shaq some trouble...
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why are the Pistons a "fluke" championship team? They actually won a championship - something the Nets haven't done - went to Game 7 against the Spurs in the Finals the very next year, and have been in the Conference Finals for 5 straight years.</div> Cause they caught an imploding Lakers team with injuries to all their best players. I'll give them credit they won, but had they faced the Spurs or a healthy Minnesota that year, they lose. They got lucky that the Lakers players had so many in locker issues and personal injuries to Malone, Payton, etc. Had Derek Fisher made that shot, Spurs be in the Finals they'd show the same that they did the following year. Minnesota..where do I start? Injuries to not just their starting point guard, but their back up one too. Not to mention Wally being hurt. We took the Pistons to seven games that year, and that was Jason Kidd playing on one knee. Kenyon Martin had extreme injuries and eventually they gave and we got blown out game 7. Had we been anywhere near 80%, we'd probably win that series. The Pistons winning sure, they're better than our Finals teams, but doesn't change the fact that they were a fluke championship team. I'm not saying they're not good, but clearly, they are one of the worst, if not the worst team to ever win a championship. It doesn't really matter since they have rings, but I can see why they can't repeat at all. All their players got overrated because of that championship team.
In my opinion, you really can't call a team that made it to the finals, "Garbage" Nets may have been the worst finalist, but they weren't as bad as you guys are saying they were. If any team makes the final, its not all luck. You have to accomplish and go through many obstacles regardless if you're in East or West to get to the NBA finals. They may have been the worst NBA finalst, but they weren't sorry.
