Hello everyone, welcome to the New Jersey Nets debate. This will be the Final Round, with the following members, "Legacy", and "The Legend". This debate will begin once the first reply is submitted and will last approximately 48 hours. Here is a couple of rules to remember: 1. No one other than the people participating in this debate, can post in this thread. 2. Form your own opinion about the topic your discussing, don't steal material. 3. Keep it clean and intelligent. And the question is: How has the firing of Byron Scott affected the Nets, both in a positive and negative way?
Firing Byron Scott could be one of the worst moves New Jersey has ever pulled. Byron Scott lead the New Jersey Nets twice to the finals. Both in 2002 and 2003, then the Nets seemed to think that was not enough. So they fire Scott and hire Lawrence Frank, the best they have done with Frank is a second round appearance. Scott clearly knew what he was doing. He had really good coaching methods and coached one of the best PG's of all time. Now is coaching one of the best young PG's. I personally thought the Nets handled the Lakers in 2002 really well, it was just at the end of the day, they had no answer to Shaq. They guraded Kobe very well, with Kerry Kittles. In 2003 they took the Spurs to the 6th game of the Finals, after being down 2-0. The man knew what he was doing when coaching. What has Frank done? A sweep in the first round one year, then lose in the 2nd round the year after, then lose again in the 2nd round? In my opinion there have been no positive aspects as how far they got and how they play.
I think the firing of Byron Scott was an average move. It was needed. It is true that he led them to two straight finals appearances, but look at the roster during that time. Jason Kidd in his prime, a great defender and shooter in Kittles, a player who was about to hit his prime in Van Horn, a young, but effective Richard Jefferson, and a beast and one of the best power forwards at that time, Kenyon Martin. If you compare that roster to today's roster as well as back thens east to today's, you could notice several big changes. When the Nets hired Lawrence Frank, who was the big man on the team? Who was the big man that you could go down to in the post and have him deliver for you in every game? What big injuries did the Nets have at the time of Byron Scott? None. What injuries did the Lawrence Frank roster have? I'll tell you, a Jason Kidd with a bad knee who just came of off surgery, a Richard Jefferson who had a torn up wrist that made him miss near 60 games, and a Vince Carter who has a big rep for being injury prone. Despite all of those obstacles he had to face a team with very low to no depth and a lack of a big man. Nenad Krstic was a rookie that hasn't played a game in the NBA until half way through the season, Jason Collins who is arguably one of the worst players, if not, the worst in the NBA, and a 40 year old Clifford Robinson. Now you tell me Legend, what was better, the Byron Scott team or the Lawrence Frank team? Not to mention, Lawrence Frank led the team to a 13-0 start when he first got the job. He lost to the playoffs the first time to the NBA champions without Richard Jefferson. And you seem to have forgotten that this guy is the youngest coach in the NBA. He has lost in the finals to teams that have made the finals, so I could still call that an accomplishment for such a young coach. <div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Firing Byron Scott could be one of the worst moves New Jersey has ever pulled. Byron Scott lead the New Jersey Nets twice to the finals. Both in 2002 and 2003, then the Nets seemed to think that was not enough. So they fire Scott and hire Lawrence Frank, the best they have done with Frank is a second round appearance.</div> Read my above post. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Scott clearly knew what he was doing. He had really good coaching methods and coached one of the best PG's of all time.</div> Frank is currently coaching one of the best point guards of all time also. How does that make him a good coach? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I personally thought the Nets handled the Lakers in 2002 really well, it was just at the end of the day, they had no answer to Shaq.</div> No answer to Shaq! There you go. The Nets still had a younger Jason Collins and Kenyon Martin to stop Shaq at the time, but it didn't happen. How do you expect a 40 year old and a rookie to stop Shaq? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They guraded Kobe very well, with Kerry Kittles.</div> Kobe was only 23 years old at the time. He was still very good, but not a superstar at the time.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think the firing of Byron Scott was an average move. It was needed. It is true that he led them to two straight finals appearances, but look at the roster during that time. Jason Kidd in his prime, a great defender and shooter in Kittles, a player who was about to hit his prime in Van Horn, a young, but effective Richard Jefferson, and a beast and one of the best power forwards at that time, Kenyon Martin. If you compare that roster to today's roster as well as back thens east to today's, you could notice several big changes.</div> Alright... Jason Kidd in his prime, Kerry Kittles, Van Horn, a young Jefferson, and Kenyon Martin. First of all, Martin was not one of the best PF's at that time, he was a good PF not one of the best. He was a rookie, Byron Scott used him really well, then combined him with Kidd he flourished. That team is better then the one that lost twice in the 2nd round slightly, just because Kidd was in his prime, which is like having a Point God. The team coached by Frank had and still has a so called superstar Vince Carter at his prime, Jason Kidd was and still is effective. Jefferson was not injured the year they lost to Miami in the 2nd round. With that kind of team, you have to make a finals appearance. Byron Scott on the other hand took a team with some missing pieces to the finals not only once, but twice. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">When the Nets hired Lawrence Frank, who was the big man on the team? Who was the big man that you could go down to in the post and have him deliver for you in every game? What big injuries did the Nets have at the time of Byron Scott? None. What injuries did the Lawrence Frank roster have? I'll tell you, a Jason Kidd with a bad knee who just came of off surgery, a Richard Jefferson who had a torn up wrist that made him miss near 60 games, and a Vince Carter who has a big rep for being injury prone. Despite all of those obstacles he had to face a team with very low to no depth and a lack of a big man. Nenad Krstic was a rookie that hasn't played a game in the NBA until half way through the season, Jason Collins who is arguably one of the worst players, if not, the worst in the NBA, and a 40 year old Clifford Robinson. Now you tell me Legend, what was better, the Byron Scott team or the Lawrence Frank team?</div> The team Frank has coached is not as good as the one Scott coached, but it is not that far off. Its about a milimeter behind, they just don't have a player like Martin. But, again, the year they lost to Miami in the 2nd round, they were predicted to be in the finals. They had all the pieces. Kristic was effective that year. Yet, they failed. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Not to mention, Lawrence Frank led the team to a 13-0 start when he first got the job. He lost to the playoffs the first time to the NBA champions without Richard Jefferson. And you seem to have forgotten that this guy is the youngest coach in the NBA. He has lost in the finals to teams that have made the finals, so I could still call that an accomplishment for such a young coach.</div> So... losing to teams that went on to the finals makes you a good coach? You're excuse is that he is young? Mike Brown is the 2nd youngest coah in the NBA today, yet he seemed to have took his team to the finals. Yes, he has LeBron and good role players. But, you guys have Superstar Vince Carter, a really good SF in Jefferson, and one of the greatest PG's of all time in Kidd. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Frank is currently coaching one of the best point guards of all time also. How does that make him a good coach?</div> Yes Frank is coahing Kidd, but he has gone no where with him. While Scott could have took the Horents into the west's top 8 if his team wern't injured. This year, they should be in the playoffs. Scott and Paul together are reviving the team. Just has he did in New Jersey. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No answer to Shaq! There you go. The Nets still had a younger Jason Collins and Kenyon Martin to stop Shaq at the time, but it didn't happen. How do you expect a 40 year old and a rookie to stop Shaq? Kobe was only 23 years old at the time. He was still very good, but not a superstar at the time.</div> Ok... I just said they had good tactics, they couldn't stop Shaq, that is why they lost. If it were not for that fact, they would have made that a competetive series to. More of reason why Scott was a good coach, his team was able to guard Kobe.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Alright... Jason Kidd in his prime, Kerry Kittles, Van Horn, a young Jefferson, and Kenyon Martin. First of all, Martin was not one of the best PF's at that time, he was a good PF not one of the best. He was a rookie, Byron Scott used him really well, then combined him with Kidd he flourished.</div> With New Jersey, he was one of the best power forwards at the time. He wasn't the best, but he could be considered as one of the best. He was even an all star. Jason Kidd made him alot better which is why he was so good at the time. I don't think Byron Scott was the one that had him play really well. I think his determination and heart was one of the reasons he was so fierce. That and playing with Kidd made him great. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">That team is better then the one that lost twice in the 2nd round slightly, just because Kidd was in his prime, which is like having a Point God. The team coached by Frank had and still has a so called superstar Vince Carter at his prime, Jason Kidd was and still is effective. Jefferson was not injured the year they lost to Miami in the 2nd round. With that kind of team, you have to make a finals appearance. Byron Scott on the other hand took a team with some missing pieces to the finals not only once, but twice. The team Frank has coached is not as good as the one Scott coached, but it is not that far off. Its about a milimeter behind, they just don't have a player like Martin. But, again, the year they lost to Miami in the 2nd round, they were predicted to be in the finals. They had all the pieces. Kristic was effective that year. Yet, they failed.</div> The Nets had no good big man who could score in the post at the time! Can you get this through your head? The Spurs have Duncan, the Heat have Shaq, the Suns have Amare, the Cavs have Gooden (who is good in the paint), the Rockets have Yao, the Bulls have Ben Wallace who is one of the best defenders in the league. Why do you think the Pistons didn't do so well in this years playoffs compared to previous years? They didn't have Ben Wallace. Why did the Bulls sweep the defending champs? They had a good post player. That is another reason why the Lakers aren't doing so good. With Shaq they had one of the best post players of all time, and they managed to win three championships. With a 19 year old named Andrew Bynum who sucks in the post, they barely make the playoffs. (don't post a video ) I don't want to get off topic, but you can not win without a good post player. The Nets simply do not have one. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">So... losing to teams that went on to the finals makes you a good coach? You're excuse is that he is young? Mike Brown is the 2nd youngest coah in the NBA today, yet he seemed to have took his team to the finals. Yes, he has LeBron and good role players. But, you guys have Superstar Vince Carter, a really good SF in Jefferson, and one of the greatest PG's of all time in Kidd. </div> They also have a <u>good post player</u> and a player that could go down as the greatest of all time. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes Frank is coahing Kidd, but he has gone no where with him. While Scott could have took the Horents into the west's top 8 if his team wern't injured. This year, they should be in the playoffs. Scott and Paul together are reviving the team. Just has he did in New Jersey. </div> "Could have" is a different story then they actually did. The Lawrence Frank Nets made the playoffs with a whole bunch of injures and off court issues. The injured Byron Scott Hornets finished the season below 500. To me that is failure, even if it is "in the west". <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok... I just said they had good tactics, they couldn't stop Shaq, that is why they lost. If it were not for that fact, they would have made that a competetive series to. More of reason why Scott was a good coach, his team was able to guard Kobe.</div> Scott was able yo guard a 23 year old Kobe. That defiantly makes him a great coach. Of course they could stop Shaq which is why they lost. If the Lawrence Frank Nets "stopped Shaq" not only would they have made the series competitive, they would have won it considering that no one was playing that well in the series besides Dwyane Wade who was getting a whole lot of calls his way.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">With New Jersey, he was one of the best power forwards at the time. He wasn't the best, but he could be considered as one of the best. He was even an all star. Jason Kidd made him alot better which is why he was so good at the time. I don't think Byron Scott was the one that had him play really well. I think his determination and heart was one of the reasons he was so fierce. That and playing with Kidd made him great.</div> It was Byron Scott's plays, not just the play of the Kidd. We all know Kidd can make others players better. But, that alone cannot give you sucess. You need the right plays and the rigth Coach running the show. With Byron Scott the Nets and Kidd had that. I bet if Byron Scott was coaching the present Nets, he would take Vince "Superstar" Carter, and Nenad Kristic to a another level. Maybe Kristic might accutually live up to the expecations you think he is capable of. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Nets had no good big man who could score in the post at the time! Can you get this through your head? The Spurs have Duncan, the Heat have Shaq, the Suns have Amare, the Cavs have Gooden (who is good in the paint), the Rockets have Yao, the Bulls have Ben Wallace who is one of the best defenders in the league. Why do you think the Pistons didn't do so well in this years playoffs compared to previous years? They didn't have Ben Wallace. Why did the Bulls sweep the defending champs? They had a good post player. That is another reason why the Lakers aren't doing so good. With Shaq they had one of the best post players of all time, and they managed to win three championships. With a 19 year old named Andrew Bynum who sucks in the post, they barely make the playoffs. (don't post a video ) I don't want to get off topic, but you can not win without a good post player. The Nets simply do not have one.</div> Are you having fun naming the big mans of each team? I thought Kristic was the next big thing, shouldn't he be mentioned in on that list. I agree you need a big man, that is to win in he finals. To come out of the east, means nothing. You didn't really need a superstar big man to come out the east in the past few years. Gooden is not a effectice big man, so the Cavs really only had role players. Iverson had Mutumbo, he wasn't a superstar big man, he got you in to the finals. But look at the coaches, that came out the east, Larry Brown, Pat Riley, Byron Scott and Mike Brown. Mike Brown was swpet in the finals, but atleast he got his team to the finals. What I'm trying to say is, you didn't really need a superstar big man to go to the finals in the east back then. Now you might, because of KG. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They also have a <u>good post player</u> and a player that could go down as the greatest of all time.</div> Isn't Kristic a go post player? Isn't Carter a Superstar according to you? Pair that up with Jefferson and Kidd. That should mean Finals according to you. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">"Could have" is a different story then they actually did. The Lawrence Frank Nets made the playoffs with a whole bunch of injures and off court issues. The injured Byron Scott Hornets finished the season below 500. To me that is failure, even if it is "in the west".</div> A dissapoitment... They did not have Peja, West, Paul, Chandler, Jackson,etc... Yet they still finshed at the 10th seed in the west. I don't really call that a disapointment. Where as the Nets a so called contender the past few years, finshed barley with a "500" record in the weak east. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Scott was able yo guard a 23 year old Kobe. That defiantly makes him a great coach. </div> Kobe was still good then, that was the year he started to hit his prime. He still has around 26ppg or so in that series. It is something, when you can stop Kobe Bryant, even at 23.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It was Byron Scott's plays, not just the play of the Kidd. We all know Kidd can make others players better. But, that alone cannot give you sucess. You need the right plays and the rigth Coach running the show. With Byron Scott the Nets and Kidd had that. I bet if Byron Scott was coaching the present Nets, he would take Vince "Superstar" Carter, and Nenad Kristic to a another level. Maybe Kristic might accutually live up to the expecations you think he is capable of. </div> I believe you are overratting Scott a little too much. Kenyon Martin had tons of potential. He didn't need Scott to make his career, he needed Kidd. He could have done just as well with Frank. Too bad he is having a whole bunch of injury problems right now or else I think he could have performed way better under George Karl. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Are you having fun naming the big mans of each team? I thought Kristic was the next big thing, shouldn't he be mentioned in on that list. I agree you need a big man, that is to win in he finals. To come out of the east, means nothing. You didn't really need a superstar big man to come out the east in the past few years. Gooden is not a effectice big man, so the Cavs really only had role players. Iverson had Mutumbo, he wasn't a superstar big man, he got you in to the finals. But look at the coaches, that came out the east, Larry Brown, Pat Riley, Byron Scott and Mike Brown. Mike Brown was swpet in the finals, but atleast he got his team to the finals. What I'm trying to say is, you didn't really need a superstar big man to go to the finals in the east back then. Now you might, because of KG. </div> While Krstic is one hell of a player, he is too perimeter oriented which is why I didn't put him on the list. Maybe if you read it, you would notice I said post playing big men. Not big men in general. Mutombo also was a great defensive specialist which is why the team did so well. The Nets just don't have the big man who could grabs 10 boards a game while playing well defensively and scoring in the paint. Without a player like that, the Nets wont go far. They have a good chance this year with a former all star in Jamaal Maglorie who has the potential to be that guy the Nets are looking for. Larry Brown and Pat Riley are 2 hall of fame coaches. Why would you compare them to Byron Scott or Mike Brown? And <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Isn't Kristic a go post player? Isn't Carter a Superstar according to you? Pair that up with Jefferson and Kidd. That should mean Finals according to you. </div> Hell no. Krstic is weak. He wouldn't;t make it alive in the paint against good post players which is why we would rather have Jason Collins guard the big men. That shows you some desperation. He may be a pretty good defender, but you don't normally call a player of his "skill" for anything but sitting on the bench. That should also prove how bad Krstic is in the post. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A disappointment... They did not have Peja, West, Paul, Chandler, Jackson,etc... Yet they still finished at the 10th seed in the west. I don't really call that a disapointment. Where as the Nets a so called contender the past few years, finshed barley with a "500" record in the weak east.</div> Actually the Nets have had their fair share of problems this year also. Kidd had to face trade rumors all season which could have hurt him mentally. He was also going through a divorce as was Vince Carter. I know that could really effect their game play also knowing your losing your wife and kids. Jefferson also had to face trade rumors, and we lost Nenad Krstic to a season ending injury in the first month of the season. Mikki Moore played well around after all star break so we had to wait for him to develop. Plus all he did was shoot jump shots. He was a bad defender and rebounder which hurt us alot. Having your point guard lead your team in rebounds shows that your front line is week. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe was still good then, that was the year he started to hit his prime. He still has around 26ppg or so in that series. It is something, when you can stop Kobe Bryant, even at 23.</div> How did Kittles guard him well then when he let Kobe go for an average of 26 in the series?
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I believe you are overratting Scott a little too much. Kenyon Martin had tons of potential. He didn't need Scott to make his career, he needed Kidd. He could have done just as well with Frank. Too bad he is having a whole bunch of injury problems right now or else I think he could have performed way better under George Karl.</div> Would he really do better under George Karl? With Iverson, Carmelo, and Camby to play behind? I don't think he will have the enough production or opprutunities to shine. Anyway, he might not fit into Geroge Carl's system. We never know, but it is out there. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> While Krstic is one hell of a player, he is too perimeter oriented which is why I didn't put him on the list. Maybe if you read it, you would notice I said post playing big men. Not big men in general. Mutombo also was a great defensive specialist which is why the team did so well. The Nets just don't have the big man who could grabs 10 boards a game while playing well defensively and scoring in the paint. Without a player like that, the Nets wont go far. They have a good chance this year with a former all star in Jamaal Maglorie who has the potential to be that guy the Nets are looking for. Larry Brown and Pat Riley are 2 hall of fame coaches. Why would you compare them to Byron Scott or Mike Brown</div> Alright, you guys don't have a post presence, but you do have the big three. Compared with the team you guys have now, you should be the same or slightly worse then the team Scott coached. Im not comparing the coaches, I just said, those are the caliber of coaches that came out of the east. Which Lawrence Frank cannot match. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Actually the Nets have had their fair share of problems this year also. Kidd had to face trade rumors all season which could have hurt him mentally. He was also going through a divorce as was Vince Carter. I know that could really effect their game play also knowing your losing your wife and kids. Jefferson also had to face trade rumors, and we lost Nenad Krstic to a season ending injury in the first month of the season. Mikki Moore played well around after all star break so we had to wait for him to develop. Plus all he did was shoot jump shots. He was a bad defender and rebounder which hurt us alot. Having your point guard lead your team in rebounds shows that your front line is week.</div> Yes, but even with all those issues. You should perform when you hit the playoffs. Anyway, I was not reffering to this years Nets. I was talking about the 2005-2006 Nets. Where they were predicted to go to the Finals, but they ended up losing in the 2nd round to Miami. Which is a dissapointment. So is the team last year. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How did Kittles guard him well then when he let Kobe go for an average of 26 in the series?</div> Shaq averaged like 34 ppg, Kobe could have got those numbers to, if it wasn't for Kittles. This is off topic, so drop this.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Would he really do better under George Karl? With Iverson, Carmelo, and Camby to play behind? I don't think he will have the enough production or opprutunities to shine. Anyway, he might not fit into Geroge Carl's system. We never know, but it is out there.</div> Iverson is reaching the end of his prime and possibly career. We have seen that he has an un-selfish side where he was racking up those assists and finding his teammates like crazy. Carmelo would be the leading scorer, But KMart and Camby would be defensive forces. Both are great defenders and have average offensive games. I think together they would be match up real well. But let's not get off topic, again. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Alright, you guys don't have a post presence, but you do have the big three. Compared with the team you guys have now, you should be the same or slightly worse then the team Scott coached. Im not comparing the coaches, I just said, those are the caliber of coaches that came out of the east. Which Lawrence Frank cannot match. </div> Frank is not a great coach, but he is good. When he gets the Nets to play the Princeton offense, they are one hell of a team. Unfortunately for him he doesn't run it that often unless he wants to play around Kidd. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, but even with all those issues. You should perform when you hit the playoffs. Anyway, I was not reffering to this years Nets. I was talking about the 2005-2006 Nets. Where they were predicted to go to the Finals, but they ended up losing in the 2nd round to Miami. Which is a dissapointment. So is the team last year.</div> I agree it was a disappointment, but we can't blame it all on the coaching. I think it's Frank's fault that he doesn't run the ball through Kidd as much, but he is still an above average coach that is capable of taking a team to the finals. Give him the 2002-2004 Nets and we could see the same exact result, or even better again the Lakers and Spurs. Scott's time was up. He took the team to 2 straight finals, but halfway through next year he had the team below 500. Frank came in and took over giving them a 13 game winning streak and an above 500 record. Something Scott didn't do that year.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Frank is not a great coach, but he is good. When he gets the Nets to play the Princeton offense, they are one hell of a team. Unfortunately for him he doesn't run it that often unless he wants to play around Kidd. I agree it was a disappointment, but we can't blame it all on the coaching. I think it's Frank's fault that he doesn't run the ball through Kidd as much, but he is still an above average coach that is capable of taking a team to the finals. Give him the 2002-2004 Nets and we could see the same exact result, or even better again the Lakers and Spurs. Scott's time was up. He took the team to 2 straight finals, but halfway through next year he had the team below 500. Frank came in and took over giving them a 13 game winning streak and an above 500 record. Something Scott didn't do that year.</div> It was not because Frank came in, they got Vince Carter, which propled them to go on that 13 game winning streak. I doubt that Frank could have done the same or any where close to what Scott did with his team. Scott was running the triagle offense at poins with that team. Which Kidd excellent in, which is why K-Mart and Jefferson were really useful and productive back then. Frank would have probably not have given K-Mart many mintues after he hit the wall, like he did not give Nachbar many minutes when he was in his slump. Lawrence Frank just can't coach as well as Byron Scott. You guys might have made the playoffs anyway, after Vince Carter came in, or you might not have made it.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It was not because Frank came in, they got Vince Carter, which propled them to go on that 13 game winning streak.</div> Actually Carter got traded to the Nets in December 04. The Nets got Frank in January 04, so I think you got your facts wrong. K-Mart was still on the team at the time so that proves that Lawrence Frank did better then Byron Scott. The Nets team with Frank didn't even have all the key players the Scott had. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Scott was running the triagle offense at poins with that team. Which Kidd excellent in, which is why K-Mart and Jefferson were really useful and productive back then. Frank would have probably not have given K-Mart many mintues after he hit the wall, like he did not give Nachbar many minutes when he was in his slump.</div> What slump was this?
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Actually Carter got traded to the Nets in December 04. The Nets got Frank in January 04, so I think you got your facts wrong. K-Mart was still on the team at the time so that proves that Lawrence Frank did better then Byron Scott.</div> K-Mat was not on the team when Lawrence Frank coached, At the end of the 2003-04 season, Martin was traded to the Nuggets for three future 1st round draft picks in a sign-and-trade deal. Werent those the picks that were ued to trade for Carter. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Nets team with Frank didn't even have all the key players the Scott had</div> Frank had pieces to go to the finals in the 2005-2006 season. He had a New Jersey team that won thier Divison a 3rd place standng in the east. They beat the Pacers in the 1st round, then in the second round they lost to Miami. This is the year I keep refering to, I don't know what you are talking about. But, they had Carter, who was coming of one of his best years, he averaged around 29.6 ppg, 5.3 assits, 7 rebounds. Then they had Kidd, who was right at his prime, and Jefferson who was as good as he always was. Also, Kristic, who might not be a post presence, but is an excellent center. That should be enough to get to the finals. What the dissapointment in this was that they were predicted tget to the finals for another Spurs vs Nets.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">K-Mat was not on the team when Lawrence Frank coached, At the end of the 2003-04 season, Martin was traded to the Nuggets for three future 1st round draft picks in a sign-and-trade deal. </div> Carter wasn't on the team either. It proves that Frank led a Kidd/Jefferson core to a 13 game win streak without a supporting cast. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Frank had pieces to go to the finals in the 2005-2006 season. He had a New Jersey team that won thier Divison a 3rd place standng in the east. They beat the Pacers in the 1st round, then in the second round they lost to Miami. This is the year I keep refering to, I don't know what you are talking about. But, they had Carter, who was coming of one of his best years, he averaged around 29.6 ppg, 5.3 assits, 7 rebounds. Then they had Kidd, who was right at his prime, and Jefferson who was as good as he always was. Also, Kristic, who might not be a post presence, but is an excellent center. That should be enough to get to the finals. What the dissapointment in this was that they were predicted tget to the finals for another Spurs vs Nets.</div> How come your riding on Krstic's jock now? He was an "average" player when he was compared to Bynum, but now your calling him an "excellent center"? He was a rookie in the first year. The second year we lost to s very strong Heat team. One of the strongest teams the Nets had to face in the past few years. In the third year (last year), Carter choked in the playoffs and played horrible not to mention Nachbar was off and Krstic wasn't even playing, yet they won 2 games against a team that made it to the finals. The Pistons did the same exact thing without all the problems the Nets had.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Carter wasn't on the team either. It proves that Frank led a Kidd/Jefferson core to a 13 game win streak without a supporting cast. </div> They had Carter in that run, Martin was traded. Then they used the picks to trade for Carter and they sent Kerry Kittles to the Clippers. He was part of that run, because i cleraly remember headlines saying "Carter comes to Nets, Nets win 13 straight." <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How come your riding on Krstic's jock now? He was an "average" player when he was compared to Bynum, but now your calling him an "excellent center"? He was a rookie in the first year. The second year we lost to s very strong Heat team. One of the strongest teams the Nets had to face in the past few years. In the third year (last year), Carter choked in the playoffs and played horrible not to mention Nachbar was off and Krstic wasn't even playing, yet they won 2 games against a team that made it to the finals. The Pistons did the same exact thing without all the problems the Nets had.</div> Im not riding Kristic's jock, but you seem to think he isnt the center that you need, so alright then. Kristic is a reliable center, he is enough for you to get to the finals. Scott took his team to the finals with Rookie Martin, now Kristic was in his second year, he should be as good enough for them to do something. So are the Nets a weak team? They should beat Miami, Scott's team destryoed and got into to the finals twice. Yet this team is not strong enough to get the ECF at least once?
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">They had Carter in that run, Martin was traded. Then they used the picks to trade for Carter and they sent Kerry Kittles to the Clippers. He was part of that run, because i cleraly remember headlines saying "Carter comes to Nets, Nets win 13 straight."</div> Maybe that was another one because the Nets had like 4 streaks of winning 14 in a row with Frank. The first one was without Carter. Carter came to New Jersey in December while Frank came in at January. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Im not riding Kristic's jock, but you seem to think he isnt the center that you need, so alright then. Kristic is a reliable center, he is enough for you to get to the finals. Scott took his team to the finals with Rookie Martin, now Kristic was in his second year, he should be as good enough for them to do something. So are the Nets a weak team? They should beat Miami, Scott's team destryoed and got into to the finals twice. Yet this team is not strong enough to get the ECF at least once?</div> And you seem to have changed your opinion on Krstic. Martin was the first pick of the draft. He had loads of potential. He shined quickly in New Jersey because he went to college for 4 whole years. Krstic on the other hand, was the 24th pick in the draft and played 2 seasons overseas. Maybe you don't know, but their style is way different then the style in the NBA. The Nets are a good team, but not good enough to take out teams who have big forces in the paint. Krstic isn't a good defender and Collins was old which is why Shaq, the most dominate player to ever play the game got past them. He struggled against Detroit though cause they had good post defenders in Rasheed and Ben Wallace. Let's compare the old Net's starting line-up to the new one. 2005 Nets (2nd round): PG: 32 year old Jason Kidd SG: Vince Carter SF: Older Richard Jefferson PF: Jason Collins C: Nenad Krstic Bench: Rodney Buford Travis Best Jacque Vaughn Zoran Planinic Cliff Robinson Jabari Smith 2003 Nets (Finals): PG: 30 year old Jason Kidd SG: Kerry Kittles SF: Younger Richard Jefferson PF: Kenyon Martin C: Jason Collins Bench: Rodney Rogers Lucious Harris Aaron Williams Dikembe Mutombo Anthony Johnson Brian Scalabrine It looks like the 2005 Nets barely had the better starting line-up, but it clearly looks like the 03 Nets bench dominates the 05 Nets bench by far. If you also look at the east back then, there was no Shaq, which is another reason the Nets went so far and why they aren't doing the same in the previous 3 years. Jason Kidd was younger back then and they still didn't manage to win a game over Shaq and the Lakers. They have lost to Shaq and the Heat twice cause they weren't able to stop him and the calls that Dwyane Wade was getting. They should have won this year, but Nenad Krstic was injured. I bet he would have gave Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas some trouble. Enough to get the Nets focused more on Lebron so they could stop him and eventually win the series.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And you seem to have changed your opinion on Krstic. Martin was the first pick of the draft. He had loads of potential. He shined quickly in New Jersey because he went to college for 4 whole years. Krstic on the other hand, was the 24th pick in the draft and played 2 seasons overseas. Maybe you don't know, but their style is way different then the style in the NBA. </div> Yes I do know thier style, but you cannot use that as an excuse. My question, you seem to have changed your opinion of Kristic, you seemed to think he was the next big thing and you are the one who argued about him being able to guard Shaq. If you want me to refresh your memory, Ill quote that thread. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Have you watched the semi finals series between the Heat and Nets last year? Because I will tell you that Nenad was doing stuff like that to Shaq all series. Too bad Krstic has more than one highlight in his career for me to post a video like that. </div> ^Well , you seem to have thought Kristic was doing stuff to Shaq all series, not just once like Bynum. So, now im confused. Are you trying to say Kristic is not a good center or a good center? Don't say he is not a good post big man, because from what you said in that quote, he was all over Shaq throughout the series. Unless, if you want to contradict me and change your own opinion. I never said Kristic was a bad center in that debate, all I said was Bynum was a more valuable trade piece. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">2005 Nets (2nd round): PG: 32 year old Jason Kidd SG: Vince Carter SF: Older Richard Jefferson PF: Jason Collins C: Nenad Krstic Bench: Rodney Buford Travis Best Jacque Vaughn Zoran Planinic Cliff Robinson Jabari Smith 2003 Nets (Finals): PG: 30 year old Jason Kidd SG: Kerry Kittles SF: Younger Richard Jefferson PF: Kenyon Martin C: Jason Collins Bench: Rodney Rogers Lucious Harris Aaron Williams Dikembe Mutombo Anthony Johnson Brian Scalabrine</div> Allright, firstly I said that the team Scott coached was better then your current team and the one in 2005. But not that far off, or do I have to quote myself to refresh your memory? Jason Kidd (2003) >= Jason Kidd (2005) ^Kidd is better in 2003, but not that much of a difference. He can still give you everything he has given you before. Carter > Kittles ^ I hate to admit it, but Carter is one of the best SG's in the game today, in stats and in his game. The worst in determination and heart. Jefferson (2005)> Jefferson (2003) ^ No need to explain here, Jefferson is older wiser more into his prime and better. Jason Collins < Kenyon Martin ^Well thats the first, where it seems the 2003 is really better. Kristic > Collins. ^ Another point to the 2005 team. Bench (2003) > Bench (2005) ^The Bench is by far better, but that is only the bench. So, out of all these points, it seems that only the Power Forward position and the Bench are better for the 2003 team. The Bench is alot, which makes them a slightly better team. But, not so much better. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If you also look at the east back then, there was no Shaq, which is another reason the Nets went so far and why they aren't doing the same in the previous 3 years. They have lost to Shaq and the Heat twice cause they weren't able to stop him and the calls that Dwyane Wade was getting. </div> ^ I laugh at your excuses on why you think your team lost. Your blaming it on Shaq coming to the east and Dwayne Wade getting his calls.
<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes I do know thier style, but you cannot use that as an excuse. My question, you seem to have changed your opinion of Kristic, you seemed to think he was the next big thing and you are the one who argued about him being able to guard Shaq. If you want me to refresh your memory, Ill quote that thread.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Have you watched the semi finals series between the Heat and Nets last year? Because I will tell you that Nenad was doing stuff like that to Shaq all series. Too bad Krstic has more than one highlight in his career for me to post a video like that.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">^Well , you seem to have thought Kristic was doing stuff to Shaq all series, not just once like Bynum. So, now im confused. Are you trying to say Kristic is not a good center or a good center? Don't say he is not a good post big man, because from what you said in that quote, he was all over Shaq throughout the series. Unless, if you want to contradict me and change your own opinion. I never said Kristic was a bad center in that debate, all I said was Bynum was a more valuable trade piece. </div> I haven't changed my opinion on Krstic. And does it specifically say that Nenad was guarding Shaq in the series? "Doing stuff" means scoring on Shaq in the low post. Don't just assume everything based on 2 words. He didn't do it much, but sometimes he could really do well against Shaq in the low post with Collins side help. But after that game, Miami changed up their game plan so Haslem defended Krstic for the rest of the series which made him go to his perimeter ways and struggle from the outside which cost New Jersey the series without the third scorer they needed. They had no bench that year. No Eddie House, Josh Boone, Boki Nachbar, or Marcus Williams which is another reason why the lost. While the Heat had James Posey, Gary Payton, Antonie Walker, and a whole lot of more players who could come in and compete consistently on a good level unlike the Nets bench which was very thin. When we played the Heat in 2005, Jefferson played limited minutes do to coming back off an injury that made him miss nearly 60 games. Carter was being defended excellently, and Kidd was struggling at times. Krstic was a rookie when he was scoring on the most dominate player ever. He wasn't the one that was guarding him on defense. That was Collins and Krstic would come in some times for weak side help. On offense, Shaq wasn't quick enough to stop Krstic which is another reason they put Haslem on him so he could make him go for low percentage shots. In 2006, the Nets still didn't have the pieces they needed to beat the Heat. Yes, the Heat were the better team that season, but you seem to forget, the Nets beat them by double digits in the first game. The Nets had Clifford Robinson in that game. Robinson, despite bing 40 years old, was the Nets best bench player and he was the one that came out and gave the team a spark. He came in and defended the perimeter well along with making many jump shots along the way. he got suspended after the first game for not listening to the NBA's drug policy so he was out for the rest of the series. And I'm sure you know that you can't win games without any chemistry, confidence, or momentum even with alot of skill. I mean look at the Knicks! The Nets lost their best bench player which also let them down and made the big 3 lose confidence cause they had no one to come off the bench and help them out and it put alot of pressure on the young Nenad Krstic which is another reason why he struggled without the help of Cliff Robinson. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Jason Kidd (2003) >= Jason Kidd (2005) ^Kidd is better in 2003, but not that much of a difference. He can still give you everything he has given you before.</div> Kidd played excellent in 2003. Much better than his 05 playoffs. In the 03 playoffs he averaged 20 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists. In the 05 playoffs 12 points, 9 assists, and 6 rebounds on 37 percent filed goal shooting compared to his 40 in 2003. If you watched the Nets in 05, (which I doubt you did) you would notice that he still had his knee problems coming off the surgery, but he still gave a 100 percent effort even though he was playing at 50. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Carter > Kittles ^ I hate to admit it, but Carter is one of the best SG's in the game today, in stats and in his game. The worst in determination and heart.</div> Kittles is by far the better defender, Carter is by far the better offensive player. But he lacks the heart and determination we need to have him step up in the playoffs. Example: this year. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Bench (2003) > Bench (2005) ^The Bench is by far better, but that is only the bench.</div> Only the bench??? The bench is one of the most important keys to winning games. You can't go far without a deep one. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">So, out of all these points, it seems that only the Power Forward position and the Bench are better for the 2003 team. The Bench is alot, which makes them a slightly better team. But, not so much better.</div> Not only does the bench make them much better, but so does the "big man" position. I would take a young Collins and a K-Mart in his prime over a old Collins and Krstic. Kidd was also much better in 2003. You have seem to forgotten that was the year he was supposed to be the MVP, but got robbed by Duncan. He was second in voting, though. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">^ I laugh at your excuses on why you think your team lost. Your blaming it on Shaq coming to the east.</div> Yeah I am. Shaq coming to the east made the center game in the east much better. He became the dominat force that the Nets had to be recking with. So it seems like the Nets have lost to Shaq's team on several occasions. Frank has won 2 games with the Nets against Shaq while Scott has won none.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I haven't changed my opinion on Krstic. And does it specifically say that Nenad was guarding Shaq in the series? "Doing stuff" means scoring on Shaq in the low post. Don't just assume everything based on 2 words. He didn't do it much, but sometimes he could really do well against Shaq in the low post with Collins side help. But after that game, Miami changed up their game plan so Haslem defended Krstic for the rest of the series which made him go to his perimeter ways and struggle from the outside which cost New Jersey the series without the third scorer they needed. They had no bench that year. No Eddie House, Josh Boone, Boki Nachbar, or Marcus Williams which is another reason why the lost. While the Heat had James Posey, Gary Payton, Antonie Walker, and a whole lot of more players who could come in and compete consistently on a good level unlike the Nets bench which was very thin.</div> Ok... all this is rif-raff, you just seem to go on and on. But, it has no relevance on what we are debating on. We were supposed to debate on Byron Scott's positive and negative aspects of him being fired. But, it seems we have strayed way off topic. You seem so intent on comparing teams. Yes Miami is the better team, that is not my argument though. Again you said, Kristic and Jason Collins together did good against him in the post sometimes. Which has to be enough, because the rest of the team has to step up and help out and shut down others. Also, its not because of Shaq that you guys lost those series, he was part of it, but it was mostly Wade. For one, you keep stating Shaq "The most dominant player to ever play he game." Also, you keep questioning my knowledge of basketball by saying "I doubt..." or "I don think you know..." When I have to ask... Have you even watched Shaq played in the past 2-3 years. He has been anything but Dominant. He is no longer the Shaq of the Lakers. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">When we played the Heat in 2005, Jefferson played limited minutes do to coming back off an injury that made him miss nearly 60 games. Carter was being defended excellently, and Kidd was struggling at times. Krstic was a rookie when he was scoring on the most dominate player ever. He wasn't the one that was guarding him on defense. That was Collins and Krstic would come in some times for weak side help. On offense, Shaq wasn't quick enough to stop Krstic which is another reason they put Haslem on him so he could make him go for low percentage shots. In 2006, the Nets still didn't have the pieces they needed to beat the Heat. Yes, the Heat were the better team that season, but you seem to forget, the Nets beat them by double digits in the first game. The Nets had Clifford Robinson in that game. Robinson, despite bing 40 years old, was the Nets best bench player and he was the one that came out and gave the team a spark. He came in and defended the perimeter well along with making many jump shots along the way. he got suspended after the first game for not listening to the NBA's drug policy so he was out for the rest of the series. And I'm sure you know that you can't win games without any chemistry, confidence, or momentum even with alot of skill. I mean look at the Knicks! The Nets lost their best bench player which also let them down and made the big 3 lose confidence cause they had no one to come off the bench and help them out and it put alot of pressure on the young Nenad Krstic which is another reason why he struggled without the help of Cliff Robinson.</div> More rif-raf all this is, but I will debate on this, if you insist. In 2005, the Nets were swept, they should at least have won 1 game. You stated that they need Chemistry, Confidence, and Momentum to win games right? They had that in 2005. They were almost a lottery team, when they started having thier multiple winning streaks and overdid the odds and solidified themselves into the playoffs. To have mutiple winning streaks means, means Chemistry, Confidence, and Momentum. Then again in 2006, they were predicted to get to the finals. They had all thier players healthy and Carter was coming off his best season ever. They had all the Chemistry and were in the 3rd spot. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kidd played excellent in 2003. Much better than his 05 playoffs. In the 03 playoffs he averaged 20 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists. In the 05 playoffs 12 points, 9 assists, and 6 rebounds on 37 percent filed goal shooting compared to his 40 in 2003. If you watched the Nets in 05, (which I doubt you did) you would notice that he still had his knee problems coming off the surgery, but he still gave a 100 percent effort even though he was playing at 50. Not only does the bench make them much better, but so does the "big man" position. I would take a young Collins and a K-Mart in his prime over a old Collins and Krstic. Kidd was also much better in 2003. You have seem to forgotten that was the year he was supposed to be the MVP, but got robbed by Duncan. He was second in voting, though. </div> Alright, firstly stats do not mean anything. Kidd was young and had all the energy and legs to put up the stats. Kidd is still effective and is as good as he ever was. He can still make everyone around him better and is the best at doing it. For the bold part, I suggest you read my first paragraph. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kittles is by far the better defender, Carter is by far the better offensive player. But he lacks the heart and determination we need to have him step up in the playoffs. Example: this year</div> Carter is a better player overall then Kittles by far. But, if you think Kittles is better, its fine with me. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Only the bench??? The bench is one of the most important keys to winning games. You can't go far without a deep one.</div> Really...? I did not know at all. If you accutually read my post throughly, I said the bench is what makes the old team better. Let me refresh your memory yet again... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Bench is alot, which makes them a slightly better team. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah I am. Shaq coming to the east made the center game in the east much better. He became the dominat force that the Nets had to be recking with. So it seems like the Nets have lost to Shaq's team on several occasions. Frank has won 2 games with the Nets against Shaq while Scott has won none.</div> An old Shaq in the east that has been bounded by injuries and years is much more scarier then the most dominant big man to ever play the game and has won three championships... right? Frank won 1 game, the one game they won in 2005 againt a weak Shaq and Wade. Which team was better the 2002 Lakers team or the 2006 Heat team? Please, don't even argue on that point.
Damn. All our other stuff is way off topic. I guess I should continue from here cause it's the only one talking about the coaching. <div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">An old Shaq in the east that has been bounded by injuries and years is much more scarier then the most dominant big man to ever play the game and has won three championships... right? Frank won 1 game, the one game they won in 2005 againt a weak Shaq and Wade. Which team was better the 2002 Lakers team or the 2006 Heat team? Please, don't even argue on that point.</div> The 2002 Lakers team was stronger by the 06 Heat team, but not by as much as the 03 and 05 Nets' differences. Shaq is still dominate. His size and strength is a part of the reason. He has really good post moves. Frank and Scott couldn't stop him, but not too many coaches out there did. I'm telling you, Frank is better than Scott right now, but not by much. If he runs the ball through Kidd, he would be much, much more better and successful that Byron Scott has been with the Nets and in coaching in general.
Ok... Why did you just ignore all my points and go off on the most off topic point of all my points. Does that mean you agree with all the points I posted above? <div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">: The 2002 Lakers team was stronger by the 06 Heat team, but not by as much as the 03 and 05 Nets' differences. Shaq is still dominate. His size and strength is a part of the reason. He has really good post moves. Frank and Scott couldn't stop him, but not too many coaches out there did. I'm telling you, Frank is better than Scott right now, but not by much. If he runs the ball through Kidd, he would be much, much more better and successful that Byron Scott has been with the Nets and in coaching in general.</div> Shaq's size and strenght could be the problem of course. But he has been weighed down by injuries so much through out his carrier, he barley played minutes in the series. The problem was that Mouring and Shaq toghter was way to much for the Nets. We are not arguing on that though. Do you honestly believe Lawrence Frank is a better Coach then Byron Scott??? It shows how bad of a coach Frank is by not running the ball through Kidd. Scott used Kidd to his fullest potential. Scott has the same coaching methods as Phil Jackson, he to uses the Triangle offense sometimes. That is the offense Kidd does best in.
