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

[Quetzalcoatl]

It is amazing how this board moves back in forth from "they are not that bad" to "maybe the lakers can pass them".

There are two groups of posters on here: one group who don't think the Nets are very good, and one group who thinks that the Nets are okay, but have had bad luck to start the season.  There is no singular entity of opinion on this, although I am of the first group.

Secondly, Kobe is now averaging like 20 points for the last few games and the Lakers look frisky as of now.  They looked terrible before.

So yes, there are people who overestimate the Nets on here and the Lakers have improved since two weeks ago.  Nothing about that is weird.

[PhoSita]

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.

[GratefulCs]

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.

hahaha

I wonder who THAT poster could be?

[celticsclay]

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.

Do you still think they will 30? They sit at 7-18. So they would have to go 23 - 34 the rest of the way if my math is correct. Considering they have had perfect health until losing RHJ two games ago this seems unlikely to me.

Also related to you getting flack. You have gotten some from me, but it is not because I lump you in with anyone. You argued all summer that the Nets starting 5 was pretty good and that they wouldn't be that bad because of it. I, and others, argued that you bench depth was important and the fact that they had d-league level players after their top 6 would cause problems throughout the season cause you can't just rely on a starting 5 throughout the season. Analytics, linesmakers and statistical modeling were all brought into the discussion and they all pointed to a win total at best in the mid 20's. Fast forward to 25 games into the season and a lot of things argued against the Nets have come 100% true. To your credit, the starting 5 has played well and put up decent numbers.

However, their demise has 100% come from not having any depth. They play teams close and lose down the stretch when their bench unit gets killed. It seems pretty clear to me that you could step back and be like, yea I probably underestimated how bad their bench would hurt them and they are a bit worse than I thought. If you did that I don't think anyone would give you flack. Instead it seems you have doubled down a lot rather than just acknowledging the nets season as it is. 

[saltlover]

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.

Do you still think they will 30? They sit at 7-18. So they would have to go 23 - 34 the rest of the way if my math is correct. Considering they have had perfect health until losing RHJ two games ago this seems unlikely to me.

In fairness to Phosita, I'd point out that 25 wins qualifies as closer to 30 than 15.  That's 18-39 over the rest of the season, which is within their abilities if Lopez stays healthy.

[Evantime34]

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.

This is absolutely fair, I know I for one have gotten you mixed up with that other poster. I apologize for that.

[PhoSita]

Do you still think they will 30? They sit at 7-18. So they would have to go 23 - 34 the rest of the way if my math is correct. Considering they have had perfect health until losing RHJ two games ago this seems unlikely to me.

In fairness to Phosita, I'd point out that 25 wins qualifies as closer to 30 than 15.  That's 18-39 over the rest of the season, which is within their abilities if Lopez stays healthy.

^ See above.


The Nets are bad, but unless Lopez suffers a major injury, they probably won't be horrible.  They're probably gonna keep riding their main guys until they collapse or the season ends.

You're right that all along it's been, basically, a question of whether you think the lack of depth or the quality of their starting 5 will make a bigger difference.  To start the season, the starting 5 was struggling and the depth was a major issue.  They had a bad start and that gave some hope that I was wrong and they might hang with the Sixers and Lakers for a bottom record.

Lately, their starting 5 has been pretty good and they've been sneaking wins every few games or so.  If you think their play over the last few weeks is more representative of how they're gonna be the rest of the way, then you'd probably conclude they'll win about a third of their games the rest of the way.

Guess how many wins that would be?  25.

And who knows, if they've got their main guys healthy in March and April, it wouldnt' shock me to see them put together a run of .500 or better ball as many of their opponents pack it in.  That could get 'em to 30.


The RHJ injury helps us a bit, and there's always that lurking possibility of Lopez going out.  All along I've said that if he suffers a major injury, that's a game changer. 

At the same time, in 5 of the previous 7 seasons he's played 72 games or more.  So expecting him to go down for a long time seems a little bit like an article of faith.

[Emmette Bryant]

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.

There are two types of posters.  Those who divide posters into two groups and those that don't.
 

[PhoSita]

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.

There are two types of posters.  Those who divide posters into two groups and those that don't.
 

Well, I suppose I can't argue with that. 

[Eddie20]

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.

hahaha

I wonder who THAT poster could be?

I wonder what his revised/up to minute prediction is.

[Quetzalcoatl]

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.

Ha my point was trying to be that you can't say Celticsblog (or any message board for that matter) is a monolith that all thinks alike, but I dumbed it down with the "two types of posters" to make it easier.  In trying to explain that point, I became the very thing I was arguing against.  TP to you sir.

In fairness though, there are people who think that the Nets are bad and people who think the Nets are okay with bad luck.  There isn't a third opinion on the matter really anywhere, this board or otherwise.  They're certainly not good.

[Quetzalcoatl]

New topic: Shane Larkin got a concussion in practice a couple days ago.  There is no timetable for his return.

Jarrett Jack played 35:39 minutes against the Heat last night, because they have no other backup PG to spell him.

Shane Larkin will definitely miss the game tomorrow vs the Pacers: http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/brooklyn-nets-shane-larkin-out-indiana-pacers-game-concussion-121715

Jarrett Jack will therefore have to put in major minutes again with one day's rest against a really good defensive team.

They get one day's rest again, then they immediately have a back to back against the Wolves and Bulls, then one day's rest and then they play the Mavs.  So 5 games in 8 days for Jack while potentially playing 35+ minutes a game if Larkin can't return soon.

Jarrett Jack is 32 years old.

Just throwing all of that out there...

[celticsclay]

Do you still think they will 30? They sit at 7-18. So they would have to go 23 - 34 the rest of the way if my math is correct. Considering they have had perfect health until losing RHJ two games ago this seems unlikely to me.

In fairness to Phosita, I'd point out that 25 wins qualifies as closer to 30 than 15.  That's 18-39 over the rest of the season, which is within their abilities if Lopez stays healthy.

^ See above.


The Nets are bad, but unless Lopez suffers a major injury, they probably won't be horrible.  They're probably gonna keep riding their main guys until they collapse or the season ends.

You're right that all along it's been, basically, a question of whether you think the lack of depth or the quality of their starting 5 will make a bigger difference.  To start the season, the starting 5 was struggling and the depth was a major issue.  They had a bad start and that gave some hope that I was wrong and they might hang with the Sixers and Lakers for a bottom record.

Lately, their starting 5 has been pretty good and they've been sneaking wins every few games or so.  If you think their play over the last few weeks is more representative of how they're gonna be the rest of the way, then you'd probably conclude they'll win about a third of their games the rest of the way.

Guess how many wins that would be?  25.

And who knows, if they've got their main guys healthy in March and April, it wouldnt' shock me to see them put together a run of .500 or better ball as many of their opponents pack it in.  That could get 'em to 30.


The RHJ injury helps us a bit, and there's always that lurking possibility of Lopez going out.  All along I've said that if he suffers a major injury, that's a game changer. 

At the same time, in 5 of the previous 7 seasons he's played 72 games or more.  So expecting him to go down for a long time seems a little bit like an article of faith.

I think their play being better over the last few weeks is a bit overstated. They have beaten the rockets and 76ers at home. Both of those teams are horrible, with the Rockets being awful on the road. Their other two wins are against the Suns at home and the pistons at home in their last 11 games. in other words they have beaten 4 probably lottery team at home in 11 games with one team being over .500. In the meantime they have been blown out by average teams like the Magic and Knicks. None of this has really impressed me. Add this in to an injury to their only prospect that was playing well (and a minor injury to another) and things are the bleakeast they have been in brooklyn since they ended their 0-7 start. 

[tazzmaniac]

New topic: Shane Larkin got a concussion in practice a couple days ago.  There is no timetable for his return.

Jarrett Jack played 35:39 minutes against the Heat last night, because they have no other backup PG to spell him.

Shane Larkin will definitely miss the game tomorrow vs the Pacers: http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/brooklyn-nets-shane-larkin-out-indiana-pacers-game-concussion-121715

Jarrett Jack will therefore have to put in major minutes again with one day's rest against a really good defensive team.

They get one day's rest again, then they immediately have a back to back against the Wolves and Bulls, then one day's rest and then they play the Mavs.  So 5 games in 8 days for Jack while potentially playing 35+ minutes a game if Larkin can't return soon.

Jarrett Jack is 32 years old.

Just throwing all of that out there...

Karl had Rondo play 43+ minutes in 5 straight games over 8 days and 40+ minutes in 8 of 9 games.  Jack is already averaging 32 minutes so adding a few more minutes for a few games isn't going to kill him. 

[Rondo9]

New topic: Shane Larkin got a concussion in practice a couple days ago.  There is no timetable for his return.

Jarrett Jack played 35:39 minutes against the Heat last night, because they have no other backup PG to spell him.

Shane Larkin will definitely miss the game tomorrow vs the Pacers: http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/brooklyn-nets-shane-larkin-out-indiana-pacers-game-concussion-121715

Jarrett Jack will therefore have to put in major minutes again with one day's rest against a really good defensive team.

They get one day's rest again, then they immediately have a back to back against the Wolves and Bulls, then one day's rest and then they play the Mavs.  So 5 games in 8 days for Jack while potentially playing 35+ minutes a game if Larkin can't return soon.

Jarrett Jack is 32 years old.

Just throwing all of that out there...

Karl had Rondo play 43+ minutes in 5 straight games over 8 days and 40+ minutes in 8 of 9 games.  Jack is already averaging 32 minutes so adding a few more minutes for a few games isn't going to kill him.

Yeah and I think Rondo had played an entire game twice!