Nets sign Rodney Rogers.

[PlatinumGold]

I don't know. i'm really beginning to like what the Nets Front office is doing for this team. Chris Childs, Mutombo and now Rogers.

I think at this point the Nets are the CLEAR Eastern conference favorites.

 

[XMan]

They still don't have a go-to-guy. The Lakers have the two best in the league.

Lakers in 4 - again.

 

[PlatinumGold]

xerox

who would you suggest the nets get?? choking tim duncan? the joke in sacramento webber? the wilting kevin garnett?

who out in the west can compete w/ the lakers?? no one.

the nets were probably the 2nd best team in the NBA last season. There is no CLEAR argument for saying that sacramento was better than NJ.

 

[XMan]

Rodney Rogers and Jason Kidd are Phoenix cast-offs. Up until last year Kidd was a playoff choker. Dikembe Mutombo is on the downside of his career. Kerry Kittles has gimpy knees. Kenyon Martin is a power forward who can't rebound.

Let's face it, if the Nets were in the west they'd be a #8 seed.

There was a rumor that the Nets were going to go after Kevin Garnett. I think that would have given them a much better chance of beating the Lakers than Deke.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
I don't know. i'm really beginning to like what the Nets Front office is doing for this team. Chris Childs, Mutombo and now Rogers. I think at this point the Nets are the CLEAR Eastern conference favorites.

I wouldn't get too pumped about it. They are far from a great team and only looked as good as they did last year because everyone else really sucked. They almost got knocked out by Indiana who barely made it into the playoffs. You can't expect everyone else to suck for very long.

Like Xerox said, they don't have a go to guy and they can't dominate any position in particular, except kidd as a pg when he is playing and especially shooting well.

That said, I think Rod Thorn is a solid gm who's going to continue to improve the team.

 

[MagicOnline]

This is funny, every Laker fan says the same thing. Even though the refs saved the Lakers @ss in game 6, and Lakers should have lost game 7 but Sac choked on the line. To say the Nets were better than the Kings last year is a joke, and only a Laker fan would say that. Or someone that doesn't know $hit about the NBA. The Kings won 61 games in the West having their 2 best players out for long stretches of the season.

The lakers won't even be the best team in LA this year should Shaq keep his mind on tv shows and big toe surgeries................

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
xerox

who would you suggest the nets get?? choking tim duncan? the joke in sacramento webber? the wilting kevin garnett?

who out in the west can compete w/ the lakers?? no one.

the nets were probably the 2nd best team in the NBA last season. There is no CLEAR argument for saying that sacramento was better than NJ.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: MagicOnline
This is funny, every Laker fan says the same thing. Even though the refs saved the Lakers @ss in game 6, and Lakers should have lost game 7 but Sac choked on the line. To say the Nets were better than the Kings last year is a joke, and only a Laker fan would say that. Or someone that doesn't know $hit about the NBA. The Kings won 61 games in the West having their 2 best players out for long stretches of the season.

The lakers won't even be the best team in LA this year should Shaq keep his mind on tv shows and big toe surgeries................

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
xerox

who would you suggest the nets get?? choking tim duncan? the joke in sacramento webber? the wilting kevin garnett?

who out in the west can compete w/ the lakers?? no one.

the nets were probably the 2nd best team in the NBA last season. There is no CLEAR argument for saying that sacramento was better than NJ.

I'm not a Laker fan. I'm a realist. Nobody is going to beat LA in the playoffs as long as Phil, Kobe, and Shaq are around.

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
the nets were probably the 2nd best team in the NBA last season. There is no CLEAR argument for saying that sacramento was better than NJ.

uhhh....

Sacramento took 3 games from the Lakers in the series and took em to overtime in game 7.

New Jersey was swept in 4.

How much more clarity do you need?

 

[syzygy]

lakers were lucky.

the kings signed keon clark today. this guy is wirey, has excellent hops, but lacks bulk.

on paper there is no way the lakers should win one game in a playoff series against sacramento. they're sooo deep.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: MagicOnline
This is funny, every Laker fan says the same thing. Even though the refs saved the Lakers @ss in game 6, and Lakers should have lost game 7 but Sac choked on the line. To say the Nets were better than the Kings last year is a joke, and only a Laker fan would say that. Or someone that doesn't know $hit about the NBA. The Kings won 61 games in the West having their 2 best players out for long stretches of the season. The lakers won't even be the best team in LA this year should Shaq keep his mind on tv shows and big toe surgeries................

Sac vs. LA is probably going to be the nba finals again, what a great series.

The fact that Shaq might have surgery in a few weeks is strategy, I'm sure (being somewhat late in the summer). They always seem to be very forgiving of him when he starts the season late. Fact is, they are better off not running the big man for 82 games, to preserve his health for later in the season/playoffs. It also helps the rest of the team gel and pull their weight without him. Especially since they know they can win on the road too and don't require home court advantage throughout the playoffs.

 

[MagicOnline]

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Sacramento took 3 games from the Lakers in the series and took em to overtime in game 7.

New Jersey was swept in 4.

How much more clarity do you need?

Sacramento didn't take em' to overtime, they handed them overtime on a silver platter. It was the worst choke from the free throw line I have ever seen a team do in such a big game. Im glad I sold my game 7 tix, I was there game 1,2 and 5.......... it was an amazing atmosphere.

 

[jaydee]

Watching him play for the Celtics last year, I don't see how your gaining much with Rogers. A tweener sf/pf, plays too upright, and gives up a lot of fouls. He'll hit the occasion 3, I'll give you that.

Go Celtics.

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: MagicOnline

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Sacramento took 3 games from the Lakers in the series and took em to overtime in game 7.

New Jersey was swept in 4.

How much more clarity do you need?

Sacramento didn't take em' to overtime, they handed them overtime on a silver platter. It was the worst choke from the free throw line I have ever seen a team do in such a big game. Im glad I sold my game 7 tix, I was there game 1,2 and 5.......... it was an amazing atmosphere.

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

And yeah i was at game 1 and 5 too. Also went to games during the Jazz and Mavs series (including the clinching game 5). Buying tickets online during playoffs and not having to wait in line is great

 

[iamme]

The Kings suck for not giving Mike Bibby a fat contract after his playoff performance last year. He was the only one on that team with enough balls to take big shots. Chris Webber was too much of a puss to take a big shot. It's a slap in the face, IMO, not to give Bibby what he deserves. If the Kings still had Jason Williams, they probably wouldn't be nearly as good....

 

[iamme]

As for the Nets, they did a good job getting rid of underacheiving, overpaid Van Horn. Last year was his chance to step up and show everyone he deserved the insane amount of money he was getting. All he showed was how timid he was. At least Rodney Rogers stepped up and was willing to shoot. In that respect, I think the Nets are better off.

 

[PlatinumGold]

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

The Nets record puts them at a big fat 5th behind the Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. They all play the same teams at least twice, and they've both got their share of scrub teams in their conferences.

What do the Nets have going in their favor? The luck that they happen to be playing in the Eastern Conference?

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

The Nets record puts them at a big fat 5th behind the Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. They all play the same teams at least twice, and they've both got their share of scrub teams in their conferences.

All I'm saying that your argument is just as hypothetical.

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

The Nets record puts them at a big fat 5th behind the Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. They all play the same teams at least twice, and they've both got their share of scrub teams in their conferences.

All I'm saying that your argument is just as hypothetical.

So is the argument saying 'The Nets match up alot better with the Kings than the Lakers." Just keeping consistent with who i'm trying to get my point across with.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

The Nets record puts them at a big fat 5th behind the Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. They all play the same teams at least twice, and they've both got their share of scrub teams in their conferences.

All I'm saying that your argument is just as hypothetical.

So is the argument saying 'The Nets match up alot better with the Kings than the Lakers." Just keeping consistent with who i'm trying to get my point across with.

IMHO, the Kings were the 2nd best team in the NBA last year. I don't think that the Spurs, Mavs, or Blazer would have come out on top in the East, though. The Kings and Mavs were supposed to be the "true" NBA Finals, remember? The Mavs didn't have a chance because they played no D. Fun to watch, but come playoff time, you know that the winners are the teams who can play D. The Kings actually showed some good defense, which is why I think they were that good.

I think that Shaq was just way too much for the Nets to handle. The Kings did a "ok" job w/ Divac and Pollard. Divac flopping actually seemed to throw off Shaq in the beginning. It would have been interesting to see a Kings/Nets matchup. I think the Nets would have faired better, just because of the absence of Shaq.

Next season, I think the Lakers will win again. Shaq and Kobe are just way too much. Shaq is playing his best basketball and Kobe hasn't hit his prime yet.....just judging by his age.

Anyways, just my opinion

 

[UCDznutz]

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: iamme

Originally posted by: UCDznutz

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

yeah i know they pretty much choked in that game 7 with the free throws, but the point i'm trying to get across is how well they played the Lakers throughout the series while New Jersey pretty much got blown out of the water. Kings were the 2nd best team last year, but not by much under #1.

What do you think the NBA is Geometry?? there are no transitive properties here. Kings played LA close, Nets gone blown out by LA therefore Kings are better than Nets. BS.

Nets match up with the Kings a LOT better than they did / do against LA.

sure they matched up well against the Kings, but that's not to say they would have beaten them anyways. Honestly I don't even think New Jersey could even hang with the Spurs or Mavs, let alone the Kings and Lakers. What's your argument as to why the Nets were the 2nd best team? That they were the Eastern Conference champs? Please. Its all hypothetical, but i don't think there's any doubt that the Kings, Spurs, Mavs, even the Blazers could have won that thing and played the Lakers in the finals. That's not to discount that Jason Kidd is arguably the best point in the nba, and Kenyon Martin is a future star, but i still don't see how they come even close to the big guns in the West.

You say that the Nets being the 2nd best team is hypothetical, but you arbitrarily state that the Kings, Spurs, Mav, and Blazers would have won the East? Please.

The Nets record puts them at a big fat 5th behind the Kings, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. They all play the same teams at least twice, and they've both got their share of scrub teams in their conferences.

All I'm saying that your argument is just as hypothetical.

So is the argument saying 'The Nets match up alot better with the Kings than the Lakers." Just keeping consistent with who i'm trying to get my point across with.

IMHO, the Kings were the 2nd best team in the NBA last year. I don't think that the Spurs, Mavs, or Blazer would have come out on top in the East, though. The Kings and Mavs were supposed to be the "true" NBA Finals, remember? The Mavs didn't have a chance because they played no D. Fun to watch, but come playoff time, you know that the winners are the teams who can play D. The Kings actually showed some good defense, which is why I think they were that good.

I think that Shaq was just way too much for the Nets to handle. The Kings did a "ok" job w/ Divac and Pollard. Divac flopping actually seemed to throw off Shaq in the beginning. It would have been interesting to see a Kings/Nets matchup. I think the Nets would have faired better, just because of the absence of Shaq.

Next season, I think the Lakers will win again. Shaq and Kobe are just way too much. Shaq is playing his best basketball and Kobe hasn't hit his prime yet.....just judging by his age.

Anyways, just my opinion

haha nice