Those Carter/Kidd/Jefferson Nets teams + Tyson Chandler

[The Nets]

Originally Posted by gigantes

no way. kittles and kmart were playing at the absolute peak on both ends of the floor, making good things happen all over the place and fitting in superbly with the program.

vince never did fit in to the nets champion running games, which immediately took away some of the huge impact that kidd made in 02 and 03. he just wasn't that great of a fit for the nets.

VC is still an upgrade over Kittles thats for sure, the problem is that we lost both Martin and Kittles but only got one VC. The Nets front-court was among the worst in the league at that time, even with a VC-Kidd backcourt and Jefferson at SF it aint gonna help. Well if Kristic did not get injured in 07 things could have turned out a bit different, but its too late to talk about this now.

[gigantes]

Originally Posted by The Nets

VC is still an upgrade over Kittles thats for sure, the problem is that we lost both Martin and Kittles but only got one VC. The Nets front-court was among the worst in the league at that time, even with a VC-Kidd backcourt and Jefferson at SF it aint gonna help. Well if Kristic did not get injured in 07 things could have turned out a bit different, but its too late to talk about this now.

nah, i disagree. kittles was never a name player, but he was a tremendous, long-armed defender that covered the fast PG's for kidd, created havoc on defense, helped ignite the fastbreak, and then was superb at finishing as kidd lead the break. not flashy or amazing like VC, but he created many easier buckets for himself and others than VC ever did.

VC was a semi-interested defender, didn't like to run much, and tended to stall the whole offense. his presence completely changed what the nets' approach was and we found out how that worked in the end.


and re: kmart and kittles,
we got as much as we could for them. it was actually a miracle that we got as much as we did. kmart's knees were completely shot and kittles back was finished. nothing to do with the front office. simple nature and reality.

[BIG FURB]

Originally Posted by gigantes

no way. kittles and kmart were playing at the absolute peak on both ends of the floor, making good things happen all over the place and fitting in superbly with the program.

vince never did fit in to the nets champion running games, which immediately took away some of the huge impact that kidd made in 02 and 03. he just wasn't that great of a fit for the nets.

I call BS on this. Kidd and Carter were probably the best backcourt in the league when they were together, I don't see how he wasn't a great fit. The loss of Martin destroyed any semblance of a decent frontcourt for that team, killing any chance for them to be anything other than playoff victims to a more balanced Miami Heat team. Adding Chandler would have definitely helped on that front, though I don't think enough to put them over the top (Chandler was too raw at the time)

[gigantes]

i just explained why VC wasn't a good fit. really nothing else to say.

and VC and kidd may have been the 'best' backcourt for awhile, but that doesn't mean it made for the best team. really nothing else to say. you either get this or you don't, i guess.

[JoshCoward]

I remember the San Antonio series where I think it was K-Mart that was sick (flu) and had something along the lines of 3-23 shooting in a crucial game 4 or 5. You just wonder what could've been had he been healthy (though I do believe Nets would've lost the series either way) or that Detroit series when Kidd played despite injury, pushing that series to game 7. Also wonder how Kidd would've played had he not been injured or had that Microfracture surgery because that surgery totally changed how Kidd played imo.

All these could've, ifs, should've.. but that Nets team was a joy to watch for sure.

[BIG FURB]

Originally Posted by gigantes

i just explained why VC wasn't a good fit. really nothing else to say.

and VC and kidd may have been the 'best' backcourt for awhile, but that doesn't mean it made for the best team. really nothing else to say. you either get this or you don't, i guess.

Yes, it was already explained why it didn't make for the best team (no frontcourt), which is the whole point of the threadmaker saying "what if they added Tyson Chandler?" Those Finals Nets team were entertaining, and played with heart, but they were a fastbreak team who's best closer was probably kidd. That's not a recipe for championship success where halfcourt offense and having guys that can create offense when the game slows down is at a premium.

Adding Vince gave them a player capable of getting buckets when the game slowed down, but their big men were abysmal. Their best frontcourt players during that time were Krstic, Mikki Moore and oooooold ass Uncle Cliffy, and they had to match up against Shaq. It was a testament to how good Kidd & Carter were that they were even remotely competitive.

[gigantes]

we're getting in to apples and oranges.

the last thing i was talking about was whether VC would have been a good swap for kittles on the championship teams, not what came afterwards. there were a whole bunch of things that happened afterwards, and i'll agree with you that VC was the best step forward in the wake of the kmart sign-and-trade for picks. and all the other crap.

but if you're talking about whether VC would have been an upgrade over kittles, i say it's fool's gold. it would have added a big closer, like you say, but he would also have broken other areas, as i mentioned. naturally most people will think that adding the big name automatically means an improvement. i say, not in this case.

[BIG FURB]

Originally Posted by gigantes

we're getting in to apples and oranges.

the last thing i was talking about was whether VC would have been a good swap for kittles on the championship teams, not what came afterwards. there were a whole bunch of things that happened afterwards, and i'll agree with you that VC was the best step forward in the wake of the kmart sign-and-trade for picks. and all the other crap.

but if you're talking about whether VC would have been an upgrade over kittles, i say it's fool's gold. it would have added a big closer, like you say, but he would also have broken other areas, as i mentioned. naturally most people will think that adding the big name automatically means an improvement. i say, not in this case.

My bad, didn't know that was your argument. I agree with you

[LockoutOver11]

if only mourning worked out....

[gigantes]

Originally Posted by BIG FURB

My bad, didn't know that was your argument. I agree with you

k, cool. it's fun talking about those vintage teams in any case.

[DStebb716]

They would've won multiple championships. The big guy was literally all they were missing. They drafted ****ing Josh Boone in the first round for god sake.

[hon]

Vince's legacy as a Net was his dunk over Alonzo...

[Rake2204]

Originally Posted by hon

Vince's legacy as a Net was his dunk over Alonzo...

And his game-winning reverse alley-oop against Toronto:

[Pointguard]

Originally Posted by The Nets

The nets lost 2-4 to the Spurs in 2003, it was much closer than anyone of you might think. The loss of Martin and Kittles is huge though, but adding Tyson Chandler and Vince Carter may as well replace that. Dont see it as a huge upgrade, so the chance is about the same as they actually did in 2003.

Yeah, and the refs didn't let Kenyon Martin couldn't touch Duncan. It was a bit unfair as in the East they let all the banging go on but totally pulled the carpet on KMart guarding Duncan. Tyson Chandler of today probably would have been able to get them over the hump. No way would Duncan been able to roam defensively as Chandler would have been dunking away on lobs. And Tim would have been more like 25 and 11 than the 28 and 15 guy he was which might have been enough for the two extra wins. Particularly if you are talking about VC instead of Kittles.

[PJR]

Would've still lost to the Wade/Shaq Heat.