<div class="entry"> Courtesy of NetsDaily. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>John Schuhmann of NBA.com admits to being a Nets fan and finds himself a bit perturbed by a column written this weekend by Palm Beach Post columnist Chris Perkins. Perkins opined that the Big Three’s run is “Over. Finished … afailed experiment.” Schuhmann suggests there are other measures of success in the NBAbesides a championship and lays them out. It’s hardly a homer’s lament, but itimplies the death of the Nets has been greatly exaggerated.</div></p> </div> Measures of Success - John Schuhmann - NBA.com</p> He makes some great points. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schub)</div><div class='quotemain'>Of the 30 teams in the league, only four of them have made the playoffs the last six seasons. They are San Antonio, Detroit, Dallas and New Jersey. To me, that is success, especially when you consider that the Nets had made the playoffs only once in their previous seven seasons.</div> and <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schub)</div><div class='quotemain'>In the first sentence of his second paragraph, Perkins makes it sound easy to get to the second round. In the past six seasons, only three teams have made it to the second round five times or more. They are San Antonio (6), Detroit (6) and New Jersey (5). Once again, that doesn't seem like failure to me (not that they haven't been disappointing during certain stretches along the way).</div></p> He's right. This team has had success...just not "ultimate success". I guess this "experiment" with our big three hasn't gone THAT bad.</p>
True, although I still regard the final endgame as winning a ring. Still, its better to be frustrated about a team that continually makes the playoffs every year and is not hitting their previously set expectations, rather than be frustrated about a team that just sucks. Raptors. What?</p>
Why is he looking over the past 6 seasons? The current Big 3 hasn't been together that long. And I don't know if just making the playoffs is all that big of an accomplishment. I mean, of course there are some terrible teams out there that just can't seem to dig themselves out of the basement and they'd probably love to switch places. But, more teams make the playoffs than don't each year and its not that praiseworthy of an accomplishment. I still think success should be judged on winning championships and/or a team's progression towards that goal. I haven't seen much of either from this Nets team. They've hovered around that 1st/2nd round area for a few years now and don't really address any of their fundamental weaknesses. Instead, it seems like each season they come in with essentially the same roster and an attitude that with better health/matchups/chemistry/experience, etc. they can go farther than last time.</p>
I would have to say that the big three was a failed experiment. The goal was a championship or at least Eastern Conference Finals.</p> I'll use Boston and The Pistons as examples. For Boston anything less than the Eastern Conference Finals is a failure. When Shaq came to the Heat their goal switch from making it to the playoffs to winning a championship. When you have certain players on your team you have certain expectations. That is one reason the Knicks are the joke of the NBA.</p> When you have Kidd Carter and Jefferson you expect more than just 3 wins combine in the second round. many people dissed Boston saying they were in trouble if any of their big three go down they'll be in trouble or they have no bench and laugh at Eddie House. Now look at them 20-2 and look how they win games.</p> You see a big difference in their big three and ours. </p> Something fails if it does not do what is expected of it. The Nets have fallen way below expectations so they have failed.</p> The Pistons have considered every season after their championship season a failure. Dumars has already said he is not satisfied with Conference Finals. Anything less than NBA Finals will result in big changes.</p> </p>
I wonder how many of youremember the Netsbefore Jason Kidd?</p> When there were players like Johnny Newman, Kendall Gill, and Evan Eschmeyer instead of Boki Nachbar, Antoine Wright and Sean Williams. When the Nets had Stephen Jackson, Damon Jones, and Earl Boykins before they all became stars. When the solehighlight of the season was Stephon Marbury scoring 50 on the Lakers.When there was no LED screen, no advertising blitz, no slogans. Before Yormark, before Ratner, before Thorn and Stefanski. When Jayson Williams unloaded in the parking lot?When Derrick Coleman was our franchise player? I could go on an on about what life was like before 2001.</p> I do remember a lot of that sufff, andI never thought that the Nets would ever get to the point where we'd be having this discussion, where the Nets were a failure because they didn't win a championship. Really, I'm just happy I've been a part of this wild ride the past six years. It hassurpassed any of my wildest dreams of what this franchise could someday become.</p> And now, in three years, the Nets are going to move into what will be instantly the best arena in the NBA. Putting all of this in perspective, how could the Nets not be a success story?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I wonder how many of youremember the Netsbefore Jason Kidd?</p> When there were players like Johnny Newman, Kendall Gill, and Evan Eschmeyer instead of Boki Nachbar, Antoine Wright and Sean Williams. When the Nets had Stephen Jackson, Damon Jones, and Earl Boykins before they all became stars. When the solehighlight of the season was Stephon Marbury scoring 50 on the Lakers.When there was no LED screen, no advertising blitz, no slogans. Before Yormark, before Ratner, before Thorn and Stefanski. When Jayson Williams unloaded in the parking lot?When Derrick Coleman was our franchise player? I could go on an on about what life was like before 2001.</p> I do remember a lot of that sufff, andI never thought that the Nets would ever get to the point where we'd be having this discussion, where the Nets were a failure because they didn't win a championship. Really, I'm just happy I've been a part of this wild ride the past six years. It hassurpassed any of my wildest dreams of what this franchise could someday become.</p> And now, in three years, the Nets are going to move into what will be instantly the best arena in the NBA. Putting all of this in perspective, how could the Nets not be a success story?</p> </div></p> </p> I feel like not many people were Nets fans before Kidd, or before Carter. Those were some fun years though, wish there were more lifelong Nets fans around.</p> Chris Morris was my man. Him and Drazen. Man, I thought those teams were set with DC and KA, and then Drazen came along. I can still remember my dad vehemently arguing that the Nets should have taken Dikembe Mutombo in 91 over KA. Who woulda known.</p> </p> I try to erase those few years that John Calipari coached from my memory, though. I was so excited that we were back in the playoffs, turned the team around something crazy, but had to play Jordan, and got spanked. Then the next year the team imploded during the strike year and Calipari got canned. Ugh.</p> </p> </p>
I think there are two different issues:</p> 1. Has the Jason Kidd experiment been successful (the Nets over the last 6 seasons) - extremely so, for all the reasons listed.</p> 2. Has the Vince Carter experiment (the Nets over the last 3 seasons and this season - up to debate, but IMO, a failure. 0 seasons with 50+ wins. in 3 years, only 3 victories in the second round. Losing the Atlantic division twice in 3 years (and going to lose it this year). I think the Nets are stuck in NBA purgatory - which is arguably worse than NBA hell. It's like the Mookie Blaylock/Steve Smith/Mutumbo Hawks - competitive, but not threatening.</p>
