Nets Debate:vcwannabe15 vs virve119

[NJNetz]

Welcome to the Nets debate. Today we are going to have "virve119" face of against "vcwannabe15". This debate will begin once the first reply is submitted and will last approximately 48 hours. If you are interested in being in the next debate, be sure to send a private messege to "vcwannabe15". Here is the rules I stole from the Bulls debate.

1. Only the two people participating should post in this thread after the debate is over there will be a thread for discussion and voting.

2. You can only have a debate if the people involved disagree so please try to take opposing views on the topic.

3. Keep it to clean, no personal shots

Now here is the question

What missing pieces kept the Nets from securing a championship in the Kidd era?

 

[Legacy]

I think what kept the Nets from winning the championship in the Kidd era was the fact that the Nets were not a great offensive team. They avareged only 90 points per game. They could'nt score on teams easily. They were a good defensive team, but had trouble scoring. Kidd ran a great offense but he did'nt have many great offensive players besides Kenyon Martin and Keith Van Horn. Richard Jefferson was in his 1st-3rd season and did'nt have experince to play in the NBA finals. Kerry Kittles was like a Bruce Bowen. He could play great defense but on offense he was just a shooter.

Another thing that kept the Nets from winning a championship was the fact that the Nets did'nt have a good offensive backcourt. All they had was kidd and he was the playmaker. Kittles could'nt create for himself and did'nt score many points. To play shooting guard you need to be a good scorer. They had a productive frontcourt but the backcourt was great on defense. Kittles put more pressure on Kidd, not only to be the playmaker, but to also have to score points.

IMO, those were the missing pieces which kept the Nets from winning a championship in the Kidd era.

 

[XSV]

There were several missing pieces that have not allowed the Nets to get over the championship hump in the Kidd era. Sure they made the finals two straight years, but the East was ridiculously weak in this time, and it showed by the way we got stomped in consecutive years by LA and SA.

VCWannabe, you say that a lack of offense way crucial in the Nets not winning a championship, but I have to disagree. Their defense was the Nets' main strength, but they were also a very solid offensive team, scoring on the fast-break at ease. The Nets were by far the best fast-break team until Nash came to the Suns and Kidd got injured. Also, with guys like KVH, Lucius Harris and Rogers, we had a very offensively gifted bench.

No, the bane of the Nets' title runs in the Kidd era was not offense (as Detroit proved that defense is just as, if not more important in title runs), our problems can be attributed to any one, or even all of four key factors:

1) We lacked a dominating big-man. K-Mart was great, but his offensive game in the post was border-line awful (especially in the finals). We had Mutombo who was old and awful on O, and Collins who did a good job on Shaq but not much else. KVH, and Rogers could pretty much only shoot. Look at the last 4 teams to win a 'chip: We have LA with Shaq, SA with TD, Detroit with the combo of the Wallaces, and Miami with an old Shaq, but still Shaq none-the-less. We never really had a go-to big guy in the post to make the D collapse down (thankfully we know have Krstic).

2) We lacked a go-to guy on the perimeter until Carter came along. In the two finals' we had nobody who could get a bucket when needed, create their own shot or take the ball when the game is on the line. Kidd was great, but he just didn't have a sufficeable shot, Kittles can't create, and RJ was still too young and inexperienced. If a team doesn't have a dominating post player, the at least need a superstar wing player (a la Jordan's Bulls), and we just didn't have that during our runs.

4) Young, inexperienced coaches. I look at the last four teams that won a 'chip, and I look whos coaching them. Jackson, Poppovich, Brown and Riley. No disrespect to Scott and Frank, but they just don't have that experience. Look what happened to the Heat when Riley took over for SVG. Experience is crucial. Also, it doesn't help when your star player and coach can't seem to get along (Scott and Kidd).

4) Our fans. When you can't even sell out your arena in the NBA finals, you know you have brutal fans. I mean, the players had to notice the empty seats in a championship game, and it might have somewhat affected their morale. I don't expect Arco here, but that was just plain terrible.

Anyways, IMO, those were the missing pieces which kept the Nets from winning a championship in the Kidd era.

 

[Legacy]

Good luck virve119.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Their defense was the Nets' main strength, but they were also a very solid offensive team, scoring on the fast-break at ease. The Nets were by far the best fast-break team until Nash came to the Suns and Kidd got injured.</div>

The Nets were only good on the fastbreak. They could'nt score in a halfcourt game.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1) We lacked a dominating big-man. K-Mart was great, but his offensive game in the post was border-line awful (especially in the finals). We had Mutombo who was old and awful on O, and Collins who did a good job on Shaq but not much else. KVH, and Rogers could pretty much only shoot. Look at the last 4 teams to win a 'chip: We have LA with Shaq, SA with TD, Detroit with the combo of the Wallaces, and Miami with an old Shaq, but still Shaq none-the-less. We never really had a go-to big guy in the post to make the D collapse down (thankfully we know have Krstic).</div>

He was a great defender, but once again he did not have much offense.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">2) We lacked a go-to guy on the perimeter until Carter came along. In the two finals' we had nobody who could get a bucket when needed, create their own shot or take the ball when the game is on the line. Kidd was great, but he just didn't have a sufficeable shot, Kittles can't create, and RJ was still too young and inexperienced. If a team doesn't have a dominating post player, the at least need a superstar wing player (a la Jordan's Bulls), and we just didn't have that during our runs.</div>

Ile I said we had a horrible offensive backcourt. Kidd was doing all he can, but Kittles was not a good offensive player. Every team needs a go to guy, Kittles was'nt it.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">4) Our fans. When you can't even sell out your arena in the NBA finals, you know you have brutal fans. I mean, the players had to notice the empty seats in a championship game, and it might have somewhat affected their morale. I don't expect Arco here, but that was just plain terrible.</div>

I think that would have gave the team more confidence and a push to do better. It would have given them a boost to play better and bring more fans.

 

[XSV]

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Good luck virve119.</div>

Thanks and good luck to you too.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Nets were only good on the fastbreak. They could'nt score in a halfcourt game.</div>

A fastbreak offense is still an offense. The reason that they weren't as effective in the halfcourt set is because they lacked either a superstar wing player like VC or low-post scorer.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He was a great defender, but once again he did not have much offense.
</div>

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. Martin was great at running the floor for a big-man, but he had no low-post game what-so-ever.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Ile I said we had a horrible offensive backcourt. Kidd was doing all he can, but Kittles was not a good offensive player. Every team needs a go to guy, Kittles was'nt it.
</div>

Kittles wasn't going to be a Carter or Kobe-like player, but he wasn't a bad offensive player. Between the 01-02 and 02-03 (our finals runs) he averaged 13.2 ppg and 2.6 apg. Between these same two seasons, Kidd averaged 16.7 ppg and 9.4 apg. That's and average of 29.9 ppg and 12 apg for our starting backcourt. To put it in perspective, the Lakers starting backcourt between 01-02 and 02-03 avgd. 38.4 ppg but only 8.8 apg. While their backcourt avgd. 8.5 more ppg than ours, they avgd. 3.2 less apg, which (if we say all the assists translated into two pointers) turns into 6.4 points. So, really, one of the best backcourts in the league only averaged 2.1 more ppg than us.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think that would have gave the team more confidence and a push to do better. It would have given them a boost to play better and bring more fans.
</div>

Yep, that's the point I'm trying to make. Every team in any sport always stresses how important home-court advantage is, and how important their fans are, and how it pumps them up when the fans get loud. However, it's not an advantage if your fans suck.

 

[Legacy]

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A fastbreak offense is still an offense.</div>
They were only good on the run where most of thier points came. They struggled in the paint and the perimeter.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Kittles wasn't going to be a Carter or Kobe-like player, but he wasn't a bad offensive player. Between the 01-02 and 02-03 (our finals runs) he averaged 13.2 ppg and 2.6 apg. Between these same two seasons, Kidd averaged 16.7 ppg and 9.4 apg. That's and average of 29.9 ppg and 12 apg for our starting backcourt. To put it in perspective, the Lakers starting backcourt between 01-02 and 02-03 avgd. 38.4 ppg but only 8.8 apg. While their backcourt avgd. 8.5 more ppg than ours, they avgd. 3.2 less apg, which (if we say all the assists translated into two pointers) turns into 6.4 points. So, really, one of the best backcourts in the league only averaged 2.1 more ppg than us.</div>

But, most of Kittles shots camer from a catch and shoot play. He could'nt drive it in, he could'nt score in the low post, and defienitly could not be a Kobe, Vince type of player. Our backcourt was horrible. All we did was get the ball to kidd pass to Kittles and all he did was shoot threes.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. Martin was great at running the floor for a big-man, but he had no low-post game what-so-ever.</div>

That's why we had Van Horn. 6'10, 245, he could have muscled his way in. At that time the lakers had Robert Horry as power forward. He was a good defender, but not in the post, therefore we should have gotten Keith Van Horn the ball more so he can produce in the paint.

 

[XSV]

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They were only good on the run where most of thier points came. They struggled in the paint and the perimeter.</div>

Well that doesn't mean their offense is terrible, it just means their half-court offense is bad. That translates to two of my reasons I gave, they lacked a low-post scorer or a superstar wing. Look how much the addition of Carter and Krstic has helped their halfcourt.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But, most of Kittles shots camer from a catch and shoot play. He could'nt drive it in, he could'nt score in the low post, and defienitly could not be a Kobe, Vince type of player. Our backcourt was horrible. All we did was get the ball to kidd pass to Kittles and all he did was shoot threes.
</div>

I think I proved in my above post that our backcourt was very solid. As I said before, they lacked someone in the backcourt who could takeover, or hit the game winner, but it was still very solid offensively.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">That's why we had Van Horn. 6'10, 245, he could have muscled his way in. At that time the lakers had Robert Horry as power forward. He was a good defender, but not in the post, therefore we should have gotten Keith Van Horn the ball more so he can produce in the paint.</div>

Are we talking about the same Van Horn? The one I know was pretty soft and preferred playing on the perimeter. That's why Horry ate him up in the second unit, because KVH can't post-up. He's far from a low-post threat.

 

[NJNetz]

Ok the debate is over. Please check the voting thread.