<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm not ashamed to say that the Nets have a better roster than the Celtics currently. They have great advantages in experience and star power, and because of that, they'll probably have a better team this season.
However, I think people go way overboard when they try to make their points in these team vs. team debates. First off, Raef LaFrentz does not suck. He's a pretty consistent player who put up some decent numbers on bad knees last year. Him and Collins are two totally different players, and I don't think anybody can make a solid determination on which one is more valuable to their team. Collins is one of those guys that does all the dirty work, which is a great thing for a player to focus on. But think about why he's that kind of player...it's because he doesn't have the skills to do anything else. LaFrentz is different because he's a great shooter, and because of that, he tends to play outside more. I can tell you one thing, though, Raef LaFrentz is not soft. He gets in there and bangs when he has to. Sure, sometimes he doesn't pull down board after board, but that has nothing to do with effort.
The other thing I don't understand is the quick write-off of Mark Blount. He's not Shaquille O'Neal, but he's at least an equal to Marc Jackson. If you take a look at last year's numbers, you'll see that Blount is much better at blocking shots and his FG% is almost 10% higher. All the other numbers are just about equal, including minutes, so I don't know how anybody could put one above the other without a second thought.</div>
I understand your point about LaFrentz and Collins being two different players, but I still would prefer Collins because he does the little things. And with the Nets being set outside with Kidd, Jefferson, Carter, Padgett, Murray, and Robinson all able to hit threes, they need Collins more than they would need a Raef LaFrentz type. I didn't have the courtesy of watching Raef last season, so I'll take your word about him being tougher than I thought. I may have gone a little overboard about him being soft, but I guess from the games I saw when he played for Dallas in 02-03 and for Boston in 03-04, when Dallas came to play in NJ, he wasn't able to grab a board. But him being matched up against Kenyon Martin, I guess I shouldn't have judged on that.
On the Blount/Jackson argument, if you take a look at the stats, Marc, though shooting a worse percentage from the field, playing with more shot-happy players than Blount (AI, Webber, Korver, etc.), and playing nearly two minutes less, averaged nearly 3 more points than Blount last season. Also, Marc's free throw percentage is better than Mark's by more 11%, which is important and may be the reason for those extra points. On defense, I agree that Blount is better than Jackson, and he is a better shooter from the field. I would say they are about equal: Marc is better on offense, Mark is better on defense. But IMO, Jackson is a better overall player: he can rebound and shoot free throws better and is less turnover and foul prone than Blount, and is more versatile.
