You know, I think I'll chip in into this Nets championship possibility debate. Personally, I think they can do it. I think the only team they won't be able to stop is the Lakers and that's cause they have just far too much offensive firepower. And, as always, the great equalizer in Shaq. But, if they manage to get the Spurs again, I have to agree with Stephen A. Smith from SportsCenter yesterday and think that they could beat them. The Spurs are not as good as they were last year. They lost Robinson, which really makes a big difference. He bothered a lot of shots last year against the Nets. Plus, Rasho, though a descent player, he is not even close to the defensive player that Robinson was. Plus, they lost Stephen Jackson, who, if it wasn't for him, they might not have won or even got there. He hit a lot of big shots for them, more than some people may realize. Than, if they get Dallas, hell, I'd put money on Jersey winning that series. Dallas is weak on defense and relies a lot on the jumper. Dallas would go down in 5 or 6. Sacramento I think would be able to beat the Nets. Though Sacramento plays defense a lot like Dallas, they at least occasionally try. Plus, they're throwing up 106 ppg this year. If teams in the West can't beat em without CWebb, how will Eastern teams beat them with CWebb. Than, there's the big question mark of the TWolves. They've been an interesting team this year. They started off the year looking like this thing won't work at all. But, since than, they've molded into a great team and have been arguably the best in West since early December. I think the Nets could beat them, but, it's not likely. Shutting down KG is next to impossible. And, if he gets shut down, they have Spreewell and Cassell to go to. Plus, they now have Wally back and he's getting his game back and Hudson will soon be back. So, could the Nets beat them, yes, but, it'd be hard. I think the Nets best chance is either the Spurs or the Mavs. Lakers would be much like 2 years ago and the TWolves would be very tough. But, it is very possible, depending on who comes out of the West and assuming they come out of the East, that they could be crowned the 2004 NBA Champions.
Thank you Moo. Great points. . As much as I hate to admit it, Nets doesn't stand a chance against the Lakers with a healthy Shaq.
The reason the Nets might have a shred of a chance against the Spurs and not the other 3 is because those 3 teams are better than San Antonio.
I think the Nets have a very big chance of taking it in the East. The other contenders would be of course the Pacers and the Pistons, I don't really see the Hornets until next season probably. They have such balance, not to mention an awesome coach who knows how the game should be done. Plus even your really lawsy players are trying hard and pulling it off, Collins and Rodgers. Great sixth man in Lucius Harris. Not many teams have a chance against the powerhouses in the West. Your team can hold their own but would have great difficulty and the Western team would probably have the easier game.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ANiMuS:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason the Nets might have a shred of a chance against the Spurs and not the other 3 is because those 3 teams are better than San Antonio.</div> Well let me see why: 1. Lakers has Shaq, Kobe, Malone and GP 2. Wolves has KG, Spree and Sam 3. Sacramento has Peja, Bibby, C-Webb and Brad SA only has Duncan and a bunch of role players. Don't get me wrong, SA's doing a great job with their team chemistry. Everyone knows what's needed to do in order to win. But you can't go wrong with teams with 3-4 superstars in a team that can easily score in the 100's.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ANiMuS:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason the Nets might have a shred of a chance against the Spurs and not the other 3 is because those 3 teams are better than San Antonio.</div> Those 3 are better than San Antonio huh? interesting logic. What makes you think this? Lakers I can understand but Wolves and Kings? They havn't proved anything of the sort, Spurs are still the defending NBA champions and are still the team to beat till someone knocked them off.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Magic Johnson:</div><div class="quote_post">I think the Nets have a very big chance of taking it in the East. The other contenders would be of course the Pacers and the Pistons, I don't really see the Hornets until next season probably. </div> Seeing as how the Hornets are in the West next year as they will be replaced by the Bobcats next year, I really don't think they have a chance at winning there, at least not winning it all. I think they can compete, but, the West is just too powerful, and, considering the fact they have problems against the East, it's gonna be tough for them to succeed.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">Seeing as how the Hornets are in the West next year as they will be replaced by the Bobcats next year, I really don't think they have a chance at winning there, at least not winning it all. I think they can compete, but, the West is just too powerful, and, considering the fact they have problems against the East, it's gonna be tough for them to succeed.</div> Definitely, no joke. They're already doing as bad as it is. There're some teams who can contend with some of their stars and a good bench. They "need" all their starters. Look at how they perform without B Dizzle or Monster Mash. They'd need great compensation on and off the bench to simply survive.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post">Spurs are still the defending NBA champions and are still the team to beat till someone knocked them off.</div> So to use your logic, Nets is still the best team in the East coz they're back to back champs and not Detroit or Pacers. Until someone knocked them off. So we'll see you in the Finals?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting InNETSweTrust:</div><div class="quote_post">So to use your logic, Nets is still the best team in the East coz they're back to back champs and not Detroit or Pacers. Until someone knocked them off. So we'll see you in the Finals? </div> Yes, my logic applies for both conferences, Nets are still the team to beat in the east till someone beats them. I said the same last season when Lakers were champions but it doesn't always mean they won't get beat.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ANiMuS:</div><div class="quote_post">That means the Bulls were still the team to beat in '98'99, right AllNet?</div> Considering they had none of their players back, no Spurs still have the league MVP, Parker, Manu, Bowen, Rose e.t.c Nets still have their own big 3 When you have most of the guys back from a championship or finals team then you can still make the claim you are the team to beat. The Bulls situation is totally different. The theory has nearly always been the last few years you need to knock off the champions to be known as the best and of course go onto win the whole thing. Which has been the case in the west.
Are sure it's that different of a situation? For one, the Spurs team this isn't as good as they were last year, and their rivals have gotten better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ANiMuS:</div><div class="quote_post">Are sure it's that different of a situation? The Spurs team is not as good as they were last year, but three other teams have gotten significantly better.</div> Care to name the Chicago Bulls roster the year after winning the championship? Was there even a player left won win it all from the year before? No MJ, Pippen, Harper, e.t.c Spurs team is not as good as last year? what give you that impression? do you even watch Spurs games? It's clear to me the roster has improved. Tim Duncan the league and finals MVP is still there, so is the starting point guard, the defensive stopper Bruce Bowen is still in the line-up, as is Manu and hard workers like Malik Rose and Kevin Willis Other teams have got better yes, does that always =better No is the answer, we will see come playoff time how these improved teams are. Spurs are based around the same kind of group as a year ago. Tim Duncan and role players. Didn't stop them by taking the title by out-doing the superstar duo in L.A and the all-star packed Mavericks. Until the Spurs are knocked off they are still the champions. If Timberwolves beat the Spurs in a best of 7 series then they would of proved they are the better team, same goes for the Kings. None of these improved teams have proved anything YET
First of all, the reason why Chicago's situation wasn't entirely different from San Antonio's right now is because their Eastern Conference rivals didn't get better nearly as much as the Spurs' rivals right now. What San Antonio's competitors have PROVEN is that they've performed BETTER against .500+ teams than the Spurs have. You don't get the luxury of playing pushover teams in the playoffs, right? San Antonio has neither the depth nor the offense they had last season. Since we're from the same area I'm assuming I've seen them play as often as you have. You may believe in the "best until proven otherwise" philosophy. Considering how fortunate San Antonio was to play fully healthy against teams that couldn't say the same, I would disagree on that perspective in this situation. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What San Antonio's competitors have PROVEN is that they've performed BETTER against .500+ teams than the Spurs have. You don't get the luxury of playing pushover teams in the playoffs, right? San Antonio has neither the depth nor the offense they had last season. Since we're from the same area I'm assuming I've seen them play as often as you have. </div> Spurs had many problems in the first half of the season, like they did last year. They struggled with the top teams early on as well but picked it up in the 2nd half. Beat both Kings and Wolves on the road this past month. Spurs are deeper than a year ago, or at worse...equal Robert Horry, Charlie Ward, Manu, Malik Rose, Kevin Willis can all produce when needed. It's no different to last years bench. Spurs live by depending on Tim Duncan, when he's at his best like he has been they are successful. Now just because I feel Spurs are the team to beat because they are the defending champions doesn't mean they will win it all again. Honestly the best team in the NBA is without a doubt the Sacramento Kings. You only have to look at their talent level, depth and overall inside outside game, It's straight up scary. They beat the Lakers last night without 3 of their best players Chris Webber, Brad Miller and Bobby Jackson There is no excuse for why that team is not going all the way.
The Spurs are still a good team. But, we'll see what their like without their league MVP seeing as how he got injured last night. If anyone knows his status, that'd be nice if they post it somewhere, though, might've already been done but, yea, first visit today. Anyways, the Spurs are a good team, but, not as good as last years team. I think the biggest thing that hurt them outside of Robinson retiring was like I said earlier, losing Stephen Jackson. Gave em an outside prescence that they don't currently have really right now. Manu and others like Bowen are good, but, inconsistent, and, Manu is more of a slasher anyways. But, without Robinson, these guys aren't nearly as good as they were last year. But, than again, it's not the "d" that's hurting, it's the offense, and, yea, now that they're without Duncan for however long, that's gonna be even worse. EDIT: These are basically the reasons why I think they're no longer the team to beat in the West. Sorry if I didn't clearly state that in the post.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post">If you know what you are talking about why make such a statement about Robinson without even watching their games? Spurs nearly lost to Magic? So did Lakers, doesn't mean they won't be in the title hunt when it matters nor does it mean their team last year is better than their current one.</div> Magic beat the Spurs with all healthy , Lakers didn't have Malone and Kobe , Shaq wasn't at his best.Lakers will be able to win it all when all 4 are back at 100% plus the benched practice a lot. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Dexter:</div><div class="quote_post">Newsflash, Tim Duncan can do it all and proved last year that he could. Robinson really wasn't that big of a presence on the court skills wise. His presence was more in the locker room and I am sure Tim Duncan has stepped it up to be their leader in that sense. Robinson's amin contribution on the court was his defense and from the looks of it, they are doing just fine without him. If I am not mistaken they are ranked #1 in the league in total defense. </div> Want to know the truth? I think the Magic lost a lot of game because they lost Darrel Armstrong , a Veteran which didn't have a lot of skill left and was really a presence in the locker room he was our leader , all teams need a leader to inspire other players. Magic were up the whole game until like the last 3 mins of the 4th when they didn't make any shots , Spurs still have good defense but it wasn't their defense that stopped Orlando it was Magic's horrible shooting.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Magic beat the Spurs with all healthy , Lakers didn't have Malone and Kobe , Shaq wasn't at his best.Lakers will be able to win it all when all 4 are back at 100% plus the benched practice a lot.</div> Magic did not beat the Spurs, where you get this from? But you missed the whole point of my post. The best teams will lose games or only beat these poor teams every once in a while, this is the NBA not college basketball. You can't expect to be on your game for every game in a very long season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post">Care to name the Chicago Bulls roster the year after winning the championship? Was there even a player left won win it all from the year before? No MJ, Pippen, Harper, etc.</div> Actually, there were still alot of Bulls left on that 1998-1999 team. The only players I remember leaving were MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kerr and Luc Longley(I think he left too) , which like you said means no title. but anyway I agree with your theory somewhat, the champion is still the champion until someone beats them, which would make them the team to beat. but that doesnt make them the best team. You have to give the Spurs respect for what they did last year. And they still have their main to parts to that championship run Duncan & Parker. But I do believe if you go down each team in the west that has a legit shot at winning the chip, I think like a few other people said there are at least 3 teams that are better than your Spurs. And I will even said this I dont think the Spurs will make the western conference finals. But as of right now the can be classified as the team to beat because of what they have already accomplished.
