<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class="entry"> Last year,ESPN’s John Hollingercorrectly predicted the Nets’ 41-41 record–butmissed wide when he saidthe Celtics would win the Atlantic. Now, the bane of Nets’ fans is out with this year’s prediction: 39-43 and out of the playoffs. The Nets, he says,”just weren’t that good” and this year will put “the Nets-as-contenders myth to bed”. Big Three? None are in his Top 20 players. His colleague Marc Stein’s power rankingis kinder, but not much.</p> </div></p> </p> damn, what's your thought?</p> </p> Source</p> Please include a link to the article. -Kidd</p> </p> </div>
Few things I think the Nets can work on to prove him wrong...</p> The Nets need to take better advantage of their home court this season. I think they were 8th overall in the East in home wins, behind even Orlando. Whether or not they fill the building they should still have a certain comfort level at home they can benefit from.</p> They also had a negative points differential during the season, so they either need to score more or stop more. Part of that I think is that the Nets were among the worst teams in free throw shooting and blocked shots, and had the fewest steals per game of any team in the NBA.</p> Like a lot of playoff teams they didn't overhaul this summer so the improvement must be internal. I don't see the big three changing much so the onus rests on Krstic, Nachbar, Marcus Williams and Wright. With two of those four coming off of injury I think it will be tough.</p>
Get out of here, what's he smoking? Sure last year's predication was right on the money, but a 39-43 and out of the playoffs predication is pretty stupid, imo. Believe it or not, but he's a Nets hater, you can clearly tell. Let's see if the Nets can prove him wrong, which they probably will.</p> </p> J-Kidd, not a top 20 player? Nice joke.</p> </p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Get out of here, what's he smoking? Sure last year's predication was right on the money, but a 39-43 and out of the playoffs predication is pretty stupid, imo. Believe it or not, but he's a Nets hater, you can clearly tell. Let's see if the Nets can prove him wrong, which they probably will.</p> </p> J-Kidd, not a top 20 player? Nice joke.</p> </div></p> He's every Nets fan's worst enemy. He hates on the Nets more than Screamin' A. Smith hates on Rasho Nesterovic.</p> The Nets will prove him wrong. He rarely actually knows what he's talking about, he just took a lucky guess last season.</p> He also predicted Boston would win the division last year. great to see how that turned out.</p> </p> I believe the Nets will become more of a defensive-oriented team, now with Brian Hill, Sean Williams, and Magloire here. Those 2 should help.</p> </p>
He predicted the Celtics to win the division. Then he said the nets could not win with small ball then contradicted his claim later saying of was possible. Who gives a fuck why this guy says? He's a pundit. He's not God.
The ironic thing is that what did the Celtics in last year was precisely what he guessed right about the Nets: the injuries.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> J-Kidd, not a top 20 player? Nice joke.</p> </div></p> </p> Hollinger only looks at PER or predicting PER. Kidd's PER doesn't get that high and Vince's isn't in the top 20.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kidd)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> J-Kidd, not a top 20 player? Nice joke.</p> </div></p> </p> Hollinger only looks at PER or predicting PER. Kidd's PER doesn't get that high and Vince's isn't in the top 20.</p> </div></p> </p> PER overrewards high-percentage, low-volume shooters--guys like Chuck Hayes and James Singleton from two years ago. </p>
I hate this guy.</p> He says the Nets took on a hobbled Raptors team in the playoffs, they were healthier than the Nets!</p> Also says RJ's injury last year did not mean that much to the Nets because Kidd had a fantastic season. Sooooo he can't have another good season because RJ is back?</p> The great Hollinger also states that Krstic was not missed because Mikki had a fluke season. Mikki was great but I would have taken Krstic back in a second.</p> We then go to his usual shots, uber bust Antoine Wright, Kidd can't shoot, we're overrated despite the fact no one is even talking about the Nets.</p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GM3)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I hate this guy.</p> He says the Nets took on a hobbled Raptors team in the playoffs, they were healthier than the Nets!</p> Also says RJ's injury last year did not mean that much to the Nets because Kidd had a fantastic season. Sooooo he can't have another good season because RJ is back?</p> The great Hollinger also states that Krstic was not missed because Mikki had a fluke season. Mikki was great but I would have taken Krstic back in a second.</p> We then go to his usual shots, uber bust Antoine Wright, Kidd can't shoot, we're overrated despite the fact no one is even talking about the Nets.</p> </div></p> Ha, I know, I love it.</p> And about the healthiness of the raptors--they just didn't have Garbajosa. Big part for them during the regular season. Anyone know anyone else who was missing/hampered by injuries during that series? (still, the Nets were more injured--I'm just trying to think of why Holli would say that.)</p> And Krstic definitely was missed. He was the Nets' best post game, he took the most charges, he knew the whole system, and he was just overall better and more consistent than Moore.</p> BTW, I love referring to Moore's season as a "fluke", and completely ignoring the true reason as to why he was so successful--Kidd, Carter, and even Williams. Seems as if he hates giving credit where it is due, at least when it comes to the Nets.</p> </p>
All excellent points GM3. I think the Nets have got to be the most underrated overrated team (if that makes any sense). The way I see it we get buried in media coverage, and are quickly forgotten and therefore devauled by the media (Kidd should have been a MVP contender IMO, but no dice).</p> So when playoff time comes around most media members (except our own beat writers) have no real knowledge on the team, at least specifically. Therefore this 'team out of nowhere' shouldn't be expected to compete with Lebron, the safe answer in the Pistons, and the apparent 'gold standard' Miami. My point is I feel that most of these predictions are based on marketability and less skill.</p> These perceptions of mine are based on weak analysis that shows they are no more knowledgable than a casual fan. "Jason can't shoot but makes everyone better," "They've been missing a big man since KMart," "Injuries," "Vince Carter blah blah." There's a lot more to this team. Any of our more knowledgable posters on S2 could do a better job breaking down the games than what ESPN can throw at us. Thank god Marc Jackson does national coverage.</p> So it doesn't really surprise me that the Nets aren't favorites. They haven't been favorites since the last time they were in the national spotlight. While we did take a hit, we've added lots of valuable pieces and improved quite well over the past two years. But most national sportswriters will just see the "old-pg-lead-declining-team" label thats been a lazy way of summarizing us for the uninformed writer.</p> EDIT thank goodness for proof reading </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> All excellent points GM3. I think the Nets have got to be the most underrated overrated team (if that makes any sense). The way I see it we get buried in media coverage, and are quickly forgotten and therefore devauled by the media (Kidd should have been a MVP contender IMO, but no dice).</p> So when playoff time comes around most media members (except our own beat writers) have no real knowledge on the team, at least specifically. Therefore this 'team out of nowhere' shouldn't be expected to compete with Lebron, the safe answer in the Pistons, and the apparent 'gold standard' Miami. My point is I feel that most of these predictions are based on marketability and less skill.</p> These perceptions of mine are based on weak analysis that shows they are no more knowledgable than a casual fan. "Jason can't shoot but makes everyone better," "They've been missing a big man since KMart," "Injuries," "Vince Carter blah blah." There's a lot more to this team. Any of our more knowledgable posters on S2 could do a better job breaking down the games than what ESPN can throw at us. Thank god Marc Jackson does national coverage.</p> So it doesn't really surprise me that the Nets aren't favorites. They haven't been favorites since the last time they were in the national spotlight. While we did take a hit, we've added lots of valuable pieces and improved quite well over the past two years. But most national sportswriters will just see the "old-pg-lead-decling-team" label thats been a lazy way of summarizing us for the uninformed writer.</p> </div></p> That pretty much sums up how the dumb, annoying writers treat the Nets. Never the favorites, always the team to come out of nowhere and surprise people.</p> Before the injuries, tho, last year, a few guys went out on a limb to say we'd own the East. Of course, nobody saw injuries coming(cept Hollinger, that freak), since we hadn't had that many previously and our trainer seemed like a freakin' magical healer. But I believe that without injuries, by the end of January, the team would've shapen up and been one of the three top teams in the East.</p> </p>
Something else to ponder: if we continue to contend once we get to Brooklyn, I wouldn't be surprised if we get more respect by writers despite our declining age.</p> By repect I mean mainly attention. As they become more aware of our team they are able to make more well-informed, objective, and accurate analysis. I'm of course assuming that this will have a positive effect, but with one of the greatest PG's of all time, the superstar Vince Carter, and other potential favorites in RJ, Krstic, and others who couldn't like this team like Nash and the Suns, or TD and the Spurs?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> All excellent points GM3. I think the Nets have got to be the most underrated overrated team (if that makes any sense). The way I see it we get buried in media coverage, and are quickly forgotten and therefore devauled by the media (Kidd should have been a MVP contender IMO, but no dice).</p> So when playoff time comes around most media members (except our own beat writers) have no real knowledge on the team, at least specifically. Therefore this 'team out of nowhere' shouldn't be expected to compete with Lebron, the safe answer in the Pistons, and the apparent 'gold standard' Miami. My point is I feel that most of these predictions are based on marketability and less skill.</p> These perceptions of mine are based on weak analysis that shows they are no more knowledgable than a casual fan. "Jason can't shoot but makes everyone better," "They've been missing a big man since KMart," "Injuries," "Vince Carter blah blah." There's a lot more to this team. Any of our more knowledgable posters on S2 could do a better job breaking down the games than what ESPN can throw at us. Thank god Marc Jackson does national coverage.</p> So it doesn't really surprise me that the Nets aren't favorites. They haven't been favorites since the last time they were in the national spotlight. While we did take a hit, we've added lots of valuable pieces and improved quite well over the past two years. But most national sportswriters will just see the "old-pg-lead-declining-team" label thats been a lazy way of summarizing us for the uninformed writer.</p> EDIT thank goodness for proof reading </p> </div></p> that one guy at nba.com seems to have a decent handle on things.</p> </p>
You talking about schub? Yeah I was thinking about him when I mentioned S2 posters. Lets put him behind the mic</p>
