Is it just me or did Phil Jackson seem to have more fun last year than other years? From getting into a shouting match with D'Antoni, to making fun of Andrew Bynum, to giving those between-quarter interviews. Something's different. Maybe I don't pay attention much to Phil Jackson.
Yes, I've actually watched almost all Nets games from the past few season and it was quite obvious Jason Kidd wasn't playing with "heart." The guy certainly wasn't dogging it, but his heart wasn't in it for the right reason. It was so obvious Kidd was just going out there to get his triple doubles to boost his trade value so he could get traded. Anybody that watched Kidd prior to last season knew how Jason really played and while he was still obtaining his numbers, he wasn't playing the way he usually does. And as far as your other comment, about RJ being RJ, even that is false. The RJ we saw last season wasn't the same RJ from every other year he played on the Nets. The guy had one mission and that was to score, and he was so concerned about his scoring that he forgot how to defend and how to rebound.
I somewhat agree with you on the RJ statement. I dont blame him for trying to improve his game. He has done so every year in the league. That mission wasnt only an RJ mission, that was a NETS mission. The lack of scoring was a team problem the year before. The team had to addressed it. RJ wanted the ball more. Which I admire. Did he do it for personal reasons? Maybe. Unfortunately, RJ increased his scoring but neglected his defense. I can see RJ getting back to form on the defense. As far as the rebounding, for too many seasons the Nets had depended on the 1,2, and 3 to do heavy rebounding. I was all for Boone, Swill and any other big to pick up that slack. As far as kidd, I blame him to a certain extent too. That first month Kidd played with some passion. I remember a game where he was pumped his fist and showed passion. Whether it was contract issues and/or other issues, the same way Carter lost motivation to continue playing in Toronto the same thing happened with kidd here.
I recognize that you think Vince is a dog. What I want to know, though, is whether you will acknowledge it if he plays well this season, and where the bar is set.
I have acknowledged in the past when I thought Vince was playing well and playing team ball, and playing as though he cared, and I will continue to do so. But understand that the bar is not set at stats.
exactly. which it's why it's great to see him helping out the rookies in the summer league, touring Europe and speaking about how excited he is about the upcomming season, and how he looks forward to being a leader.
To me, that means nothing. I will be impressed when he has established himself as the leader of the Nets, willing to do whatever it takes to lead the Nets to victories. WHATEVER IT TAKES.
I see you don't get my point. But that's okay. I can recognize a dog being a dog by watching the games.
If that's what you want from Vince, then you'll never be happy. Your expectations are as unrealistic as those of the Vince Truthers. He is who he is- a supremely talented basketball player for whom basketball is not the end all and be all of his existence.
In that case, ultimately Vince should have sat out the last 5 games last season, as the games meant nothing (other than costing us a higher draft pick), and Vince was about to be operated on. But those are Vince's kinda games.
Your words fail you then. Vince could do as much for the Nets as Paul Pierce did for the Celtics and the Nets still wouldn't win that many games. Doing whatever it takes on a bad team doesn't guarantee victories. Switch your criteria to being competitive and then you will have a point.
hmm...I think not. I think it shows that regardless of his health, he wasn't a quitter, he continued to play as hard as he could and didn't want to bail out for a lower draft pick. Hell, he could have shut it down way before the last 5 games of the season. And I'm glad he didn't, draft day was one of the best days for the Nets all season. Could it have been better? Who cares about the might haves and the could have beens.
