Dallas Mavericks: Dark Horse to win it all next season

[Culburn369]

I personally think Portland is more of a dark horse

Only if the Lakers are scheduled in there 82 games in-a-row.

Otherwise:::Portland=80 games.

---

Anyhow, onto a team that has some legitimacy: the Dallas Mavericks. Good choice for darkhorse. It's a longshot, but, a solid choice. I think Howard is underrated. He's on ESPN's list so everybody else follows suit, f'in sheep.

There is no crushing need for a superior center in the West so Dampier will be serviceable there.

Marion will be adequate, though his shot release is a real problem come playoff time. Prepare yourself.

Kidd has really settled into a nice groove, a real comfort zone with impact.

Fine threadage.

[mystargtr34]

That said, Dallas will be better than last year.

Injuries aside, they are a bad matchup for SA, even healthy. They are too quick - both up front and on the perimeter. SA doesn't have the lockdown D anymore and they can't win a shootout with Dallas.

Flip side Dallas doesn't play physical enough to handle Denver or LA.

And they can't beat LA period. 1-6 over the past 2 seasons vs LA.

I think the Mavs might be the ones that struggle to keep up with the Spurs on the perimeter. Parker is too quick for anyone on their roster, while Manu and Jefferson are every bit as athletic as Marion and Howard. Howard has always killed the Spurs, mainly because its been Michael Finley defending him for about 30 minutes a night - Jefferson should be able to limit his point parade somewhat.

The Spurs biggest problem with the Mavs always was, and is Dirk. They still dont have anyone whos really suited to guard him (then again who does) - so its always going to be their biggest problem should they meet up again. The best bet might be McDyess, and occasionally throw big, long athletic 3's at him ala Golden State with Stephen Jackson. Richard Jefferson fits that mould, but he doesnt have the defensive rep of Jax.

Either way, health permitting, Spurs and Mavs is garuanteed at least 6 close games.

[j-money24]

If the Spurs and the Mavericks meet in the playoffs this year.. Mavs will win easily..

[mystargtr34]

If the Spurs and the Mavericks meet in the playoffs this year.. Mavs will win easily..

Your right. They won 4-1.

[2Cleva]

I think the Mavs might be the ones that struggle to keep up with the Spurs on the perimeter. Parker is too quick for anyone on their roster, while Manu and Jefferson are every bit as athletic as Marion and Howard. Howard has always killed the Spurs, mainly because its been Michael Finley defending him for about 30 minutes a night - Jefferson should be able to limit his point parade somewhat.

The Spurs biggest problem with the Mavs always was, and is Dirk. They still dont have anyone whos really suited to guard him (then again who does) - so its always going to be their biggest problem should they meet up again. The best bet might be McDyess, and occasionally throw big, long athletic 3's at him ala Golden State with Stephen Jackson. Richard Jefferson fits that mould, but he doesnt have the defensive rep of Jax.

Either way, health permitting, Spurs and Mavs is garuanteed at least 6 close games.

Parker was quicker than anyone else last year and it didn't do SA any good. Parker may be able to score but Terry and Barrea countered that well. Hill will have to get a lot of PT and doing so takes another proven scoring threat off the floor.

But yeah, SA has no one that really has a chance to slow down Dirk. And unless Tim is 100%, SA doesn't have anyone who can make Dallas pay. And SA may actually be less physical than Dallas is.

[Phillip]

LA had one of the top 5 defensives in the league last year.

- 2nd in point differential
- 6th in opp FG%
- 3rd in opp 3PT%
- 4th in opp TOs.
- 10th in blocked shots
- 2nd in steals
- 3rd in TO differential.

Only measure you can say LA's defense was average is opp PPG (13th) but that has a lot to do with the tempo LA plays at and the number of shots both teams get (LA 3rd in PPG). LA also was the top rebounding team in the league.

Hope and pray all you want LA doesn't play D but it just ain't so.

Meh, running up the score against crappy teams doesnt mean you play good defense. Their offense is their defense. They have such a proficient offense, that it makes it hard for other teams to keep up, causing them to force quick, bad shots.

All you have to do is watch the Lakers, and see that they don't shut anyone down. They go for turnovers on defense, and try to outscore them like crazy. And the style works for them, as opposed to teams like the Suns, or Mavs/Kings of old, because the Lakers are capable of operating in a half court set. That's what annoys me about when people say that an offensive heavy team cant win. Because they can, its just that teams that have no half-court offense, are the ones that run into trouble. The Lakers offense IMO is just as good as the Suns was a few years ago (not as flashy, but just as effective and efficient). But since they have players that can create their own shot (as opposed to the Sun when it was just Nash), they can still score when the game slows down.

The Lakers are an offensive-first team, and anyone that says otherwise are morons.

[j-money24]

Your right. They won 4-1.

They did that last season and they will this season if they meet.

[mystargtr34]

Parker was quicker than anyone else last year and it didn't do SA any good. Parker may be able to score but Terry and Barrea countered that well. Hill will have to get a lot of PT and doing so takes another proven scoring threat off the floor.

But yeah, SA has no one that really has a chance to slow down Dirk. And unless Tim is 100%, SA doesn't have anyone who can make Dallas pay. And SA may actually be less physical than Dallas is.

I dont think Terry and Barea come close to offsetting what Parker does for the Spurs. I think thats a pretty clear advantage for SA. The biggest factor on the perimeter in last seasons series was Josh Howard going LeBron James on Michael Finley and Ime Udoka. Theres a good chance he comes back to the J-Ho we all know and love with someone actually guarding him. RJ is a capable defender, hes no Shane Battier, but hes big, strong and athletic.

Dirk will get his 25 PPG on 50% with 3 or 4 assists - thats just Dirk, i dont think you can go into a series hoping to shut a player of that caliber down.

And i disagree about your point on physicality. McDyess is one of the tougher, more physical players there is in the NBA. Not to mention Tim Duncan aswell.

[Culburn369]

All you have to do is watch the Lakers, and see that they don't shut anyone down. They go for turnovers on defense, and try to outscore them like crazy. And the style works for them, as opposed to teams like the Suns, or Mavs/Kings of old, because the Lakers are capable of operating in a half court set. That's what annoys me about when people say that an offensive heavy team cant win. Because they can, its just that teams that have no half-court offense, are the ones that run into trouble. The Lakers offense IMO is just as good as the Suns was a few years ago (not as flashy, but just as effective and efficient). But since they have players that can create their own shot (as opposed to the Sun when it was just Nash), they can still score when the game slows down.

The Lakers are an offensive-first team

Phillip, with the goods. Stout post.

[Phillip]

And they can't beat LA period. 1-6 over the past 2 seasons vs LA.

Mavs really arent as far off as you think. Every last one of those games went down to the final moments. Mavs may not have been able to pull off wins, they have consistently played the Lakers as tough as any team in the NBA over the past 2 years. Hopefully this year, with their improvements, the Mavs can finally finish a couple of those games off.

[hater]

Gooden

enjoy our leftovers Mavs

[Muser]

If the Spurs and the Mavericks meet in the playoffs this year.. Mavs will win easily..

Beating SA doesn't "win it all" though.

If somehow Dallas get through to the finals they would be lucky not to get swept by a healthy Celts IMO.

[2Cleva]

Meh, running up the score against crappy teams doesnt mean you play good defense. Their offense is their defense. They have such a proficient offense, that it makes it hard for other teams to keep up, causing them to force quick, bad shots.

All you have to do is watch the Lakers, and see that they don't shut anyone down. They go for turnovers on defense, and try to outscore them like crazy. And the style works for them, as opposed to teams like the Suns, or Mavs/Kings of old, because the Lakers are capable of operating in a half court set. That's what annoys me about when people say that an offensive heavy team cant win. Because they can, its just that teams that have no half-court offense, are the ones that run into trouble. The Lakers offense IMO is just as good as the Suns was a few years ago (not as flashy, but just as effective and efficient). But since they have players that can create their own shot (as opposed to the Sun when it was just Nash), they can still score when the game slows down.

The Lakers are an offensive-first team, and anyone that says otherwise are morons.

Being offensive-first doesn't mean they don't play D. They aren't mutually exclusive as you claim. Forcing TOs and holding opponents to a low percentage is what D is all about.

[BUMP]

Meh, running up the score against crappy teams doesnt mean you play good defense. Their offense is their defense. They have such a proficient offense, that it makes it hard for other teams to keep up, causing them to force quick, bad shots.

All you have to do is watch the Lakers, and see that they don't shut anyone down. They go for turnovers on defense, and try to outscore them like crazy. And the style works for them, as opposed to teams like the Suns, or Mavs/Kings of old, because the Lakers are capable of operating in a half court set. That's what annoys me about when people say that an offensive heavy team cant win. Because they can, its just that teams that have no half-court offense, are the ones that run into trouble. The Lakers offense IMO is just as good as the Suns was a few years ago (not as flashy, but just as effective and efficient). But since they have players that can create their own shot (as opposed to the Sun when it was just Nash), they can still score when the game slows down.

The Lakers are an offensive-first team, and anyone that says otherwise are morons.

That's a really good post. The Lakers don't play terrible defense or anything, but more like average D and they use their offense to frustrate teams trying to keep up.

When you face a team that just scores points in bunches you tend to get out of your rhythm trying to keep up. That's just the nature of the game

[hater]

this never fails

[picc84]

The Mavs matchup advantage on the Spurs is overblown in the first place. They've beat them at full strength once in the playoffs this decade. That could happen to anyone. Even if Ginobili had played at 50% in the series this spring the outcome could easily have been different.

With Jefferson their athleticism edge is diminished even further.

[z0sa]

if the spurs and mavs meet healthy this next postseason, the mavs will be lucky to win 1 game.

[picc84]

Meh, running up the score against crappy teams doesnt mean you play good defense. Their offense is their defense. They have such a proficient offense, that it makes it hard for other teams to keep up, causing them to force quick, bad shots.

All you have to do is watch the Lakers, and see that they don't shut anyone down. They go for turnovers on defense, and try to outscore them like crazy. And the style works for them, as opposed to teams like the Suns, or Mavs/Kings of old, because the Lakers are capable of operating in a half court set. That's what annoys me about when people say that an offensive heavy team cant win. Because they can, its just that teams that have no half-court offense, are the ones that run into trouble. The Lakers offense IMO is just as good as the Suns was a few years ago (not as flashy, but just as effective and efficient). But since they have players that can create their own shot (as opposed to the Sun when it was just Nash), they can still score when the game slows down.

The Lakers are an offensive-first team, and anyone that says otherwise are morons.

Ridiculous. The Lakers arent as good a defensive team as the top couple teams in the league but they are well above average. The only team that defended the Magic better in the playoffs were the Celtics. The Nuggets series was also won on defense.

The reason the Mavs and Suns couldn't win is because their defense was pitifully coached. Even the Suns, with decent defensive personnel, were swiss cheese defensively and never could get stops in key situations. When the suns lost in the playoffs every year the final score didnt reflect a team that failed to put the ball in the basket, it said that they couldnt defend ANYONE. Offense in half-court sets had little to do with it, its the fact that they couldnt defend in half court OR transition.

The Mavs could score in a halfcourt, their entire offense was predicated on iso's. But they had no idea how to defend penetrating guards, and even years later after the Dwade debacle still are clueless. Thats the reason these teams lose year after year in the playoffs, not because of some alleged failure to run a set offense. The Lakers defense this year was leagues better than either of those teams.

[picc84]

That's a really good post. The Lakers don't play terrible defense or anything, but more like average D and they use their offense to frustrate teams trying to keep up.

When you face a team that just scores points in bunches you tend to get out of your rhythm trying to keep up. That's just the nature of the game

Also wrong. With an 'average' defense we would have gotten blown out of the finals in 5 games and likely not even made it there.

[Culburn369]

if the spurs and mavs meet healthy

Hey, dummy, that's a given...quit f'in sayin' that , I'm beggin' ya. You don't have to say it. Nobody does. It's worthless.

Use your common sense, man.

[Phillip]

Being offensive-first doesn't mean they don't play D. They aren't mutually exclusive as you claim. Forcing TOs and holding opponents to a low percentage is what D is all about.

And they do that by outscoring opponents, making more opponents keep up with them. Much like the Mavs in 02 and Suns in 06 did (both teams actually ended up with pretty decent looking defensive stats, but we all know that their defenses sucked, and it was because they would stomp crappy teams guts out). All that offense will force an undisciplined team into a lot of bad shots, resulting in inflated stats. Yes, the Lakers do play at least a little defense, but to say that they are capable of shutting opponents down when their shots arent falling, is crazy. It's just not often that their shots dont fall due to the amount of offensive skills they have all around.

[Phillip]

this never fails

it just did

[Phillip]

The Mavs matchup advantage on the Spurs is overblown in the first place. They've beat them at full strength once in the playoffs this decade. That could happen to anyone. Even if Ginobili had played at 50% in the series this spring the outcome could easily have been different.

With Jefferson their athleticism edge is diminished even further.

if the spurs and mavs meet healthy this next postseason, the mavs will be lucky to win 1 game.

easy to make excuses. mavs could use excuses that Dirk played half asses, that terry played like garbage, that howard could have averaged 40 instead of 20, had he not been playing with busted ankles, etc...

what happened, happened.

[Phillip]

The Mavs could score in a halfcourt, their entire offense was predicated on iso's. But they had no idea how to defend penetrating guards, and even years later after the Dwade debacle still are clueless. Thats the reason these teams lose year after year in the playoffs, not because of some alleged failure to run a set offense. The Lakers defense this year was leagues better than either of those teams.

That Mavericks team actually played defense. I'm talking about the Nelly-ball teams.

FACT: Lakers win due to their offense, not their defense.

FACT: The Lakers offense is so well balanced, that they don't often have off-nights.

FACT: If the Lakers shots arent falling however, they are ed.

[Phillip]

Lakers have a very average defense, but thankfully our offense and Kobe is good enough to keep the ball going through the hoop, making it hard to beat us. But when we face a truly good defensive team, we get ed in the ass with 30+ point losses in the Finals.