Official 2015-16 Brooklyn Nets Season Watch Thread (21-59, 3rd slot as of 4/12)

[celticsclay]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

[tazzmaniac]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

Playing 35 minutes versus 32 minutes is not significant for a NBA player especially for just a few games.  At 32, KG averaged over 30 minutes and Pierce averaged over 34 minutes.  Both of them had a lot more minutes played on their bodies at 32 than Jack has at 32.  Rondo may be 29 but he also has had ACL surgery.  He held up just fine playing 44, 48, 48, 44 and 43 minutes over that 5 games in 8 days stretch. 

[ReadyFor17]

I get the concerns about teams shutting it down later in the season, but that will be offset by the Nets road-heavy schedule to finish the season, beginning with a 9 game western swing at the end of February and never letting up. And with nothing to play for they'll be just as likely as a true tanking team to sit Lopez or Young down if they're banged up.

Just to remind everybody this is a team that was 1-11 on the road with 100% health before any kind of late-season malaise could set in.

[Quetzalcoatl]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

Playing 35 minutes versus 32 minutes is not significant for a NBA player especially for just a few games. At 32, KG averaged over 30 minutes and Pierce averaged over 34 minutes.  Both of them had a lot more minutes played on their bodies at 32 than Jack has at 32.  Rondo may be 29 but he also has had ACL surgery.  He held up just fine playing 44, 48, 48, 44 and 43 minutes over that 5 games in 8 days stretch.

KG only played 57 games that season because he got injured from over use! 

[celticsclay]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

Playing 35 minutes versus 32 minutes is not significant for a NBA player especially for just a few games. At 32, KG averaged over 30 minutes and Pierce averaged over 34 minutes.  Both of them had a lot more minutes played on their bodies at 32 than Jack has at 32.  Rondo may be 29 but he also has had ACL surgery.  He held up just fine playing 44, 48, 48, 44 and 43 minutes over that 5 games in 8 days stretch.

KG only played 57 games that season because he got injured from over use!

yea seriously this is an argument? It's not great to play 32 year olds or 35 years in joe Johnsons case 35+ minutes. Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

[tazzmaniac]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

Playing 35 minutes versus 32 minutes is not significant for a NBA player especially for just a few games. At 32, KG averaged over 30 minutes and Pierce averaged over 34 minutes.  Both of them had a lot more minutes played on their bodies at 32 than Jack has at 32.  Rondo may be 29 but he also has had ACL surgery.  He held up just fine playing 44, 48, 48, 44 and 43 minutes over that 5 games in 8 days stretch.

KG only played 57 games that season because he got injured from over use!

The following 4 seasons KG's minutes stayed basically the same and he played in 69, 71, 60 and 68 games.  It is a nonsense argument.  There are a bunch of players that averaged over 30 minutes at age 32.  Melo will turn 32 at the end of the season and is averaging 34 minutes.  At 36, Duncan averaged 30 min while playing 69 games.  Last year his minutes dropped to 28.9 and he played 77 games.  Kobe at 34 averaged 38.6 min while playing 78 games.  Could Jack get injured this season?  Certainly but it is very unlikely it would be from overuse due to his age. 

Edit:  I'll add one more.  Joe Johnson at 32 averaged 32.6 min over 79 games and at 33 averaged 34.9 min over 80 games. 

[Celtics18]

There are two groups of posters on here

No, there really aren't.  Can we please avoid the tendency to turn everything on these forums into an either / or?

Address individual opinions expressed in individual posts as they are stated within that context.  I'm tired of feeling like I'm responding to a person's impression of the "camp" I fall into, instead of the substance of what I post.

If I seem touchy, it's because I've taken a lot of flack for basically arguing the Nets will probably end up closer to 30 wins than 15, simply because people lump me in with a particular, well-known poster who has argued at certain times that the Nets might make the playoffs.

Currently, the Nets are on pace to win 23 games.  That would of course put them slightly closer to a 30 win pace than 15.  If they lose to the Pacers tomorrow, however, they will drop to a 22 games won pace.  This would put them back to being closer to the pace of 15 wins.

Let's go Pacers!!!

[tazzmaniac]

You guys do realize Rondo is 29 and not 32? This is pretty significant. Think about KG at 29 versus him at 32.

Playing 35 minutes versus 32 minutes is not significant for a NBA player especially for just a few games. At 32, KG averaged over 30 minutes and Pierce averaged over 34 minutes.  Both of them had a lot more minutes played on their bodies at 32 than Jack has at 32.  Rondo may be 29 but he also has had ACL surgery.  He held up just fine playing 44, 48, 48, 44 and 43 minutes over that 5 games in 8 days stretch.

KG only played 57 games that season because he got injured from over use!

yea seriously this is an argument? It's not great to play 32 year olds or 35 years in joe Johnsons case 35+ minutes. Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

I'm arguing because your case holds no water.  NBA players don't become decrepit at 32.  In eras past, 32 was generally considered the end of a player's prime.  If you want to be amazed, look at what Karl Malone did even at age 39. 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/malonka01.html

[ReadyFor17]

You guys are missing the point. The problem with playing Jack too many minutes isn't that he's 32. The problem is that he's terrible.

[BDeCosta26]

You guys are missing the point. The problem with playing Jack too many minutes isn't that he's 32. The problem is that he's terrible.

Here here. Jack has played about as well as he's ever played at times this year, but he's still not a very good player. It's hard to play Jarrett Jack 35 mpg and expect to win more games than you lose. Especially when Shane Larkin is your back up.

[chambers]

There are two groups of posters on here

No, there really aren't.  Can we please avoid the tendency to turn everything on these forums into an either / or?

Address individual opinions expressed in individual posts as they are stated within that context.  I'm tired of feeling like I'm responding to a person's impression of the "camp" I fall into, instead of the substance of what I post.

If I seem touchy, it's because I've taken a lot of flack for basically arguing the Nets will probably end up closer to 30 wins than 15, simply because people lump me in with a particular, well-known poster who has argued at certain times that the Nets might make the playoffs.

Currently, the Nets are on pace to win 23 games.  That would of course put them slightly closer to a 30 win pace than 15.  If they lose to the Pacers tomorrow, however, they will drop to a 22 games won pace.  This would put them back to being closer to the pace of 15 wins.

Let's go Pacers!!!

So I think it's safe to say that they are closer to 23 wins than 15 or 30 wins. lol.

[chambers]

You guys are missing the point. The problem with playing Jack too many minutes isn't that he's 32. The problem is that he's terrible.

Here here. Jack has played about as well as he's ever played at times this year, but he's still not a very good player. It's hard to play Jarrett Jack 35 mpg and expect to win more games than you lose. Especially when Shane Larkin is your back up.

TP to you two.

And Tazz is pretty much spot on. Players start deteriorating but it's not really a stamina thing, it's an athleticism thing. That's why the best marathon runners can be 40 years old.

These NBA grandpas can still play a load of minutes, just not as effectively or as efficiently because they can't get past defenders, jump as high, or get as much strength/lift under their jumpshot.

Jarrett Jack is AWFUL and him playing more minutes is going to:
-lose them more games
-he get's injured and their D League back up PG loses them even more games.

[Celtics18]

There are two groups of posters on here

No, there really aren't.  Can we please avoid the tendency to turn everything on these forums into an either / or?

Address individual opinions expressed in individual posts as they are stated within that context.  I'm tired of feeling like I'm responding to a person's impression of the "camp" I fall into, instead of the substance of what I post.

If I seem touchy, it's because I've taken a lot of flack for basically arguing the Nets will probably end up closer to 30 wins than 15, simply because people lump me in with a particular, well-known poster who has argued at certain times that the Nets might make the playoffs.

Currently, the Nets are on pace to win 23 games.  That would of course put them slightly closer to a 30 win pace than 15.  If they lose to the Pacers tomorrow, however, they will drop to a 22 games won pace.  This would put them back to being closer to the pace of 15 wins.

Let's go Pacers!!!

So I think it's safe to say that they are closer to 23 wins than 15 or 30 wins. lol.

Nice one, chambers.  And accurate!

[tazzmaniac]

You guys are missing the point. The problem with playing Jack too many minutes isn't that he's 32. The problem is that he's terrible.

Here here. Jack has played about as well as he's ever played at times this year, but he's still not a very good player. It's hard to play Jarrett Jack 35 mpg and expect to win more games than you lose. Especially when Shane Larkin is your back up.

TP to you two.

And Tazz is pretty much spot on. Players start deteriorating but it's not really a stamina thing, it's an athleticism thing. That's why the best marathon runners can be 40 years old.

These NBA grandpas can still play a load of minutes, just not as effectively or as efficiently because they can't get past defenders, jump as high, or get as much strength/lift under their jumpshot.

Jarrett Jack is AWFUL and him playing more minutes is going to:
-lose them more games
-he get's injured and their D League back up PG loses them even more games.

That's a different argument.  I wouldn't call Jack awful but he shouldn't be a starting PG playing 32+ mpg.  If I'm the Nets, I'm watching Jennings recovery with great interest.  If he looks like he can contribute this year, I'd try to trade for him now.  He's on the last year of his contract coming off a major injury so he shouldn't be too expensive.  Even so, they might need to get a 3rd team involved to entice Detroit.  The Nets have lost quite a few close games recently so if they could pick up a few more wins if they make a modest improvement.

If they wait until the off season, Jennings, Conley and Rondo will all be available.   Adding one of those three plus a decent shooting SG to RHJ, Young and Lopez is not too bad.   

[saltlover]

You guys are missing the point. The problem with playing Jack too many minutes isn't that he's 32. The problem is that he's terrible.

Here here. Jack has played about as well as he's ever played at times this year, but he's still not a very good player. It's hard to play Jarrett Jack 35 mpg and expect to win more games than you lose. Especially when Shane Larkin is your back up.

TP to you two.

And Tazz is pretty much spot on. Players start deteriorating but it's not really a stamina thing, it's an athleticism thing. That's why the best marathon runners can be 40 years old.

These NBA grandpas can still play a load of minutes, just not as effectively or as efficiently because they can't get past defenders, jump as high, or get as much strength/lift under their jumpshot.

Jarrett Jack is AWFUL and him playing more minutes is going to:
-lose them more games
-he get's injured and their D League back up PG loses them even more games.

That's a different argument.  I wouldn't call Jack awful but he shouldn't be a starting PG playing 32+ mpg.  If I'm the Nets, I'm watching Jennings recovery with great interest.  If he looks like he can contribute this year, I'd try to trade for him now.  He's on the last year of his contract coming off a major injury so he shouldn't be too expensive.  Even so, they might need to get a 3rd team involved to entice Detroit.  The Nets have lost quite a few close games recently so if they could pick up a few more wins if they make a modest improvement.

If they wait until the off season, Jennings, Conley and Rondo will all be available.   Adding one of those three plus a decent shooting SG to RHJ, Young and Lopez is not too bad.   

What are they going to possibly offer Detroit, or a third team for that matter, to get Jennings?  The Pistons have no reason to trade him -- they're playing well enough and getting a solid player like Jennings back will only be a boon.  2nd round picks won't cut it.

The only trades the Nets should make this season are those to acquire draft picks.