PDA

View Full Version : Have the Brooklyn Nets exceeded your expectations?



jimm120
03-30-2013, 12:55 AM
I thought of them as a 5-8 seed and yet here they are at 4.

But I thought they'd be around 42-45 wins. As I write this, they are 42-30 with 10 games left. This means that they'll probably eclipse 45 wins.

So, did you think they'd be this good...record-wise, I mean?

Hawkeye15
03-30-2013, 01:08 AM
I am pretty sure I called around 45-48 wins.

LTBaByyy
03-30-2013, 01:10 AM
Every team 2-7 in the East is interchangeable to me

I won't be surprised if Boston beats the 2 seed, 6 seed beats 3 seed, and 5 seed beats 4 seed

Heat



Everyone



Bucks



Bad Teams

Sactown
03-30-2013, 01:17 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you put the option" I expected an ELITE team! I'm unrealistic" just for DoMeFavors

I actually thought they hit 52 wins.. I mean without the rough stretch with Avery Johnson they could of hit it.

BHF
03-30-2013, 01:24 AM
they have the talent but bad coaching held them back fired one idiot and a bigger one took over

jimm120
03-30-2013, 01:25 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you put the option" I expected an ELITE team! I'm unrealistic" just for DoMeFavors

I actually thought they hit 52 wins.. I mean without the rough stretch with Avery Johnson they could of hit it.

but every team has rough stretches...

Sactown
03-30-2013, 01:26 AM
but every team has rough stretches...

That is definitely true, but being a 45-48 win team while switching coaches after a good portion of the season is pretty impressive for a team that has a few players who are starting to earn the wrap as underachievers

and I disagree, good teams have rough patches. Great teams do not..

You won't catch the Spurs or Heat dropping 8 or 10 in a row

jimm120
03-30-2013, 01:34 AM
That is definitely true, but being a 45-48 win team while switching coaches after a good portion of the season is pretty impressive for a team that has a few players who are starting to earn the wrap as underachievers

and I disagree, good teams have rough patches. Great teams do not..

You won't catch the Spurs or Heat dropping 8 or 10 in a row

all teams have "rough patches"...the difference is the length. Look at the Heat. The Knicks were 0.5 games back before this hot streak. Its because the Heat were playing well but hit 1 measly "rough patch" of a few games (like a 3 or 4 game losing streak). The Thunder were the same. They had like a 4 game losing streak.

A rough patch for the elite is just that. 1 losing streak and maybe 2 or 3 more games of alternating wins and losses.

A rough patch for normal or good teams is a losing streak of 5 or so games plus alternating losses and wins for a 10 game period or so.

But all teams have rough patches..

JasonJohnHorn
03-30-2013, 10:33 AM
I would guess they are about where I expected them to be. Although I think their starting line-up is as good as any in the league, and they do have a few nice pieces off the bench, the biggest concern was chemistry. In terms of talent, they have the talent required to win 60 games, it's just a matter of coaching and chemistry. I think both coaches did a decent job with the team this year, and though I thought the team capable of 60 wins, I wasn't expecting that. I wouldn't have been surprised if they got 60 wins, but I was expecting adjustment periods for integrating new players, so 50-55 games was my expectation, and they can still fall in that window of wins.

I think they are doing as well as can fairly be expected, though I do not think they are playing to their full potential. If D-Will was playing they way he did in Utah, this team would be a 60 win team. JJ started the season off a little slow as well, which can be expected for a guy in a new system, and Lopex has been great on offence and decent on the glass. Evans has obviously been rebound VERY well and Humph and Blatche are quality guys to have coming off the bench.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 11:40 AM
Heard a lot of people say they are a 9th seed lucky 8th seed they just added Joe Johnson.

arkanian215
03-30-2013, 11:52 AM
0a

BigBlueCrew
03-30-2013, 11:57 AM
They are who thought they were...

--Dennis Green

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 11:59 AM
Most people had BK around 46-48 wins... they are right there.

The thing is this might be their best year, Wallace & JJ are both in steep decline, and Lopez stayed healthy pretty much all year. BK overall didn't have many injuries.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:02 PM
Most people had BK around 46-48 wins... they are right there.

The thing is this might be their best year, Wallace & JJ are both in steep decline, and Lopez stayed healthy pretty much all year. BK overall didn't have many injuries.

Lopez usually does stay healthy, and they are going to get deeper. The Nets got the owner that pays the checks like he is coloring with crayons.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:02 PM
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?789843-Hell-WILL-the-Nets-even-make-the-playoffs&highlight=brooklyn+expect

oh yes that thread, the bad stretch for the Nets and that was a thread.

Hawkeye15
03-30-2013, 12:04 PM
I remember I said they would fight for the 4-7 spot. Gee, look where they are.

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 12:04 PM
Lopez usually does stay healthy, and they are going to get deeper. The Nets got the owner that pays the checks like he is coloring with crayons.

Nets can only spend $3m next year on a FA... there is a cap you know.

Keeping Blatche might be difficult as well.

BK could be borderline elite had they not given away their lotto pick last year. That has to be the worst trade I can ever remember.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:06 PM
Nets can only spend $3m next year on a FA... there is a cap you know.

Keeping Blatche might be difficult as well.

BK could be borderline elite had they not given away their lotto pick last year. That has to be the worst trade I can ever remember.

ofcourse I know. and that trade will always be brought up, but I think it was pushed for since they didnt want a rookie and wanted a vet. they wouldnt have probably got a player that would play tho in the draft. Lillard is a pg and doubt they would take him.

jimm120
03-30-2013, 12:18 PM
Heard a lot of people say they are a 9th seed lucky 8th seed they just added Joe Johnson.



yeah, to me it was unrealistic to make them that. I thought of them as a 5-8 seed and if things went horribly wrong, a 9 seed but no team has EVERYTHING go wrong.

But imo, this is their ceiling. They are locked into all of those contracts. This is the core of the team that they'll have and it isn't that good of a core. But hey, at least Dwill is playing well again after 2 1/2 seasons of bad play.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:20 PM
yeah, to me it was unrealistic to make them that. I thought of them as a 5-8 seed and if things went horribly wrong, a 9 seed but no team has EVERYTHING go wrong.

But imo, this is their ceiling. They are locked into all of those contracts. This is the core of the team that they'll have and it isn't that good of a core. But hey, at least Dwill is playing well again after 2 1/2 seasons of bad play.

They still have Humphries expiring that they could get something for, so maybe the core of Dwill, Joe, Lopez but can still mess around with the other guys.

Kenny
03-30-2013, 12:20 PM
ofcourse I know. and that trade will always be brought up, but I think it was pushed for since they didnt want a rookie and wanted a vet. they wouldnt have probably got a player that would play tho in the draft. Lillard is a pg and doubt they would take him.

Whatever their intentions were, the time they made the trade they were not making the playoffs and they gave up a sure top 10 pick for a guy that was in the final year of his deal. Then on top of that they give him 10 mill a year and he ain't producing close to that level of a player.

That trade was unacceptable. As far as underachieving or overachieving. The Nets been one of the more healthy teams in the league. Especially compared to a lot of the eastern confrence teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Pacers, Celtics.

I just don't see how they are going to significantly improve the team. They are going to end up dealing Humphries expiring and picks etc.. For a good, but overpaid player on a bad contract in the offseason.

Ultimately it will only make their long term worse adding another longer contract that isn't going to put them over the top.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:24 PM
Whatever their intentions were, the time they made the trade they were not making the playoffs and they gave up a sure top 10 pick for a guy that was in the final year of his deal. Then on top of that they give him 10 mill a year and he ain't producing close to that level of a player.

That trade was unacceptable. As far as underachieving or overachieving. The Nets been one of the more healthy teams in the league. Especially compared to a lot of the eastern confrence teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Pacers, Celtics.

I just don't see how they are going to significantly improve the team. They are going to end up dealing Humphries expiring and picks etc.. For a good, but overpaid player on a bad contract in the offseason.

Ultimately it will only make their long term worse adding another longer contract that isn't going to put them over the top.

I wasnt the one who made the trade. And you can say the trade was bad but that really has nothing to do with the player. He was still resigned. They still got his bird rights to go over the cap to sign him. And how have the Nets been healthy? Lopez went down, Deron has had bad ankles all year and his play suffered and Joe is currently hurt. Plus Gerald was down aswell.

Kenny
03-30-2013, 12:31 PM
I wasnt the one who made the trade. And you can say the trade was bad but that really has nothing to do with the player. He was still resigned. They still got his bird rights to go over the cap to sign him. And how have the Nets been healthy? Lopez went down, Deron has had bad ankles all year and his play suffered and Joe is currently hurt. Plus Gerald was down aswell.

Lopez has missed 7 games all season. Wallace has missed 10. That is pretty good for the way Wallace plays. Deron has missed two games the entire season. Joe Johnson has only missed 6 games the entire season. Blatche hasn;t missed a game. Watson played in every game except two. Brooks, Humphries have been healthy. Reggie Evans the way he plays has only missed one game the entire year.

Ugh, thats being very very healthy all things considered.

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 12:33 PM
Nets have been pretty healthy, Lopez missed like 6 or 7 games... I don't think they've had even one player that has even missed more than 10 games. In the NBA, that's a pretty damn good year health wise.

Just look at NY for instance,

Felton
Shump
Amare
Sheed
Melo
Chandler
Camby

All those guys have missed 10 games or more and NY is still #2 in the East.

IND, BOS, and CHI have also had alot of injuries.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:35 PM
Nets have been pretty healthy, Lopez missed like 6 or 7 games... I don't think they've had even one player that has even missed more than 10 games. In the NBA, that's a pretty damn good year health wise.

Just look at NY for instance,

Felton
Shump
Amare
Sheed
Melo
Chandler
Camby

All those guys have missed 10 games or more and NY is still #2 in the East.

IND, BOS, and CHI have also had alot of injuries.

not to take anything away from your post but a lot of those knick players really dont bring much to the team.

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 12:38 PM
not to take anything away from your post but a lot of those knick players really dont bring much to the team.

You can say that for Camby, but pretty much every other player has been big for NY this year. Sheed was HUGE off the bench early on with his defense.

BBallfan8
03-30-2013, 12:40 PM
not to take anything away from your post but a lot of those knick players really dont bring much to the team.

That is their whole starting line up....

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 12:40 PM
You can say that for Camby, but pretty much every other player has been big for NY this year. Sheed was HUGE off the bench early on with his defense.

Amare actually is a benefit having injured, they are much better without him.

lvlheaded
03-30-2013, 12:45 PM
I knew they'd be a playoff team, I wasn't sure they'd be a championship team. And lets face it, with the way the Heat are playing, no one in the east is a championship team

KnickaBocka.44
03-30-2013, 12:53 PM
Lopez usually does stay healthy, and they are going to get deeper. The Nets got the owner that pays the checks like he is coloring with crayons.

Why can't Net fans wrap their mind around the concept of the salary cap?

29$JerZ
03-30-2013, 12:56 PM
Salary CAP wise Brooklyn is screwed.
If they can convince Blatche to stay for another year at a cheap deal and actually find someone who wants Humphries/Brooks during this draft they can alter their roster a bit but that's literally all they can do.

This is the team they will have for another 4 years.
They really need to make that Kris/Brooks trade work.

Edit - Forgot they have their first round pick this year, that helps a lot too.
Forgot they traded Houston's 1st rounder.

Sactown
03-30-2013, 12:58 PM
Why can't Net fans wrap their mind around the concept of the salary cap?
Serious denial lol... I do think the salary cap is going to significantly increase next season though to help teams out. But yeah, I hope the Nets like their team, because they're going to have them for a long time.

KnickaBocka.44
03-30-2013, 12:58 PM
Amare actually is a benefit having injured, they are much better without him.

Common misconception.

DoMeFavors
03-30-2013, 01:01 PM
Common misconception.

not really plenty of Knicks fans say it aswell.

maddBat
03-30-2013, 01:06 PM
Most people had BK around 46-48 wins... they are right there.

The thing is this might be their best year, Wallace & JJ are both in steep decline, and Lopez stayed healthy pretty much all year. BK overall didn't have many injuries.

its their 1st year together for the core of dwill jj and lopez. how would this be their best year? like said in previous posts we've had pretty bad coaching who doesnt utilize players efficiently on offense.

KniCks4LiFe
03-30-2013, 01:10 PM
I said #2 -#4 seed at worst. Think about it, if they hadn't quit at the beginning of the season and Deron had been unmobile and whiny, they'd be fighting the Knicks for the #2 spot.

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 02:08 PM
I said #2 -#4 seed at worst. Think about it, if they hadn't quit at the beginning of the season and Deron had been unmobile and whiny, they'd be fighting the Knicks for the #2 spot.

Teams don't quit at the beginning of the year, they had a rough stretch just like every team does. They also were not as good as that 11-4 start might have showed, they had by far the easiest schedule early on.

If the Knicks hadn't had their entire starting lineup miss 10+ games each, they would be much more than 4 games back.

Hawkeye15
03-30-2013, 02:22 PM
wait, the Nets weren't healthy? Cmon. Every team is going to have 30-50 games missed due to injury, at a minimum. Hell, my Wolves are well over 300. Now THAT is not staying healthy.

RLundi
03-30-2013, 02:57 PM
I figured they'd be a 3-5 seed. Everyone basically knew where they'd be. They're not contenders (hell, they're not even pretenders) but simply a solid EC team. In the East, it's:

Heat

Knicks

Everyone else

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 03:12 PM
wait, the Nets weren't healthy? Cmon. Every team is going to have 30-50 games missed due to injury, at a minimum. Hell, my Wolves are well over 300. Now THAT is not staying healthy.

double

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 03:13 PM
wait, the Nets weren't healthy? Cmon. Every team is going to have 30-50 games missed due to injury, at a minimum. Hell, my Wolves are well over 300. Now THAT is not staying healthy.

You were wrong about my Knicks thought =)

I told you they had the depth to withstand injuries and would win 50 games. On pace for 52 wins right now.

Ironic, it's actually been injuries to some of the younger players that hurt the most (felton, Shump, Melo, Chandler)

KnickaBocka.44
03-30-2013, 05:35 PM
not really plenty of Knicks fans say it aswell.

Not really. There was just a thread about this a couple of days ago and the opinions of Knick fans were pretty unanimous in saying that the record with Amare wasn't indicative of his play but rather the result of other injuries occuring during that time.

JEDean89
03-30-2013, 06:08 PM
not to take anything away from your post but a lot of those knick players really dont bring much to the team.

this is one of the stupidest quotes i have ever read. Melo, Chandler, Felton and Shumps is their starting lineup, Amare their most efficient scorer off the bench, Camby okay, but Sheed played a big part. you sir, lack so much understanding it is shocking.

JEDean89
03-30-2013, 06:12 PM
You were wrong about my Knicks thought =)

I told you they had the depth to withstand injuries and would win 50 games. On pace for 52 wins right now.

Ironic, it's actually been injuries to some of the younger players that hurt the most (felton, Shump, Melo, Chandler)

this is what people don't understand. yes some vets have gone down for the knicks, camby, sheed and kurt but it was the injuries to felton, shumps, melo, chandler and amare that have really hurt this team. The Knicks could definitely be 55+ win team had they been healthy, maybe better but they have had 19 different starting lineups this year which ****s with chemistry. the nets on the other hand.... I mean other than paying Humphries and Wallace a combined 20 mil and then another 20 to JJ so you are paying out 40 mil a year for below average talent and you could have Damian Lillard, who is 10x better and 5x cheaper than Gerald Wallace. Or Drummond who would have been a great fit next to Lopez but no you chose to pay 10 mil for Wallace :facepalm: Paying a guy 20 mil a year does not make him a great player.

BigBlueCrew
03-30-2013, 06:20 PM
this is one of the stupidest quotes i have ever read. Melo, Chandler, Felton and Shumps is their starting lineup, Amare their most efficient scorer off the bench, Camby okay, but Sheed played a big part. you sir, lack so much understanding it is shocking.

Well look at the poster and shock will immediately disappear :laugh2:

ohreally
03-30-2013, 06:56 PM
I thought of them as a 5-8 seed and yet here they are at 4.

But I thought they'd be around 42-45 wins. As I write this, they are 42-30 with 10 games left. This means that they'll probably eclipse 45 wins.

So, did you think they'd be this good...record-wise, I mean?

Record-wise, they are not far off. I expected a bit better but not all that much. But really, if you'd said Johnson would be fired, PJ would take over, Deron and Joe would shoot the way the have most of the year, and Teletovic would barely play, I have to say I would have thought they would be a good bit lower. I expected a high.powered offense but they've won a lot of games with nothing but.

I think they'll be fine next year.

Hawkeye15
03-30-2013, 07:01 PM
You were wrong about my Knicks thought =)

I told you they had the depth to withstand injuries and would win 50 games. On pace for 52 wins right now.

Ironic, it's actually been injuries to some of the younger players that hurt the most (felton, Shump, Melo, Chandler)

I was wrong by how many games? 4-5? My bad dude....

I figured the Knicks would fight for HCA, but I didn't forsee the east being so bad this year with injuries, etc. The quality of teams after Miami is pretty sad honestly.

nycericanguy
03-30-2013, 07:47 PM
I was wrong by how many games? 4-5? My bad dude....

I figured the Knicks would fight for HCA, but I didn't forsee the east being so bad this year with injuries, etc. The quality of teams after Miami is pretty sad honestly.

All in good fun... but let me have my moment... I remember debating pretty heavily about it before the season.

I had NY at 52-54 wins... but really we could have been closer to 60 if we had a relatively healthy year... but I guess NY's roster is just a bit injury prone.

John Walls Era
03-30-2013, 07:49 PM
I thought they would be the best team in New York. So they definitely didn't exceed my expectations. I would be more afraid of the Knicks than the Nets in a series.

D-Leethal
03-30-2013, 08:11 PM
They are pretty much exactly where everyone thought they would be, if not worse. Most everyone besides Knicks fans said they would be better than the Knicks this year, but I think thats more of a case that everyone underrated the Knicks more than overrated the Nets. Nets are pretty much right where everyone said they would be, Knicks are just a little better than what everyone said they would be.