Spurs to lose opener!

[mabber]

^JGrice02....ur my idol man... i could never have the patience to type all that ....i salute u

He's my idol now too...the dude just wrote 11 long paragraphs about the Mavericks I think somebody got to him

[confined]

He's my idol now too...the dude just wrote 11 long paragraphs about the Mavericks I think somebody got to him

i didnt have the patience to read it either

[Mavs_man_41]

i didnt have the patience to read it either

Yea me either.

[Mavs_man_41]

Once again you show the inability not only to argue but to comprehend the English language. I have said repeatedly the Mavs upgraded at backup PG and I even said their other moves are upgrades from a fiscal stand point. It was you who argued that the Mavs made significant upgrades furthering the distance between them and a team they were lucky to beat last season.

The Spurs and Mavs were so closely matched that in the fortune was the difference in that series. Every game was close. Every game was exciting. But you act as though the Mavs swept the Spurs on the way to a le. Wake up. The Mavs were fortunate to beat the Spurs and choked against the Heat. Who is insecure?

I have no insecurities about what the Spurs did this offseason because they will only improve our chances against teams like the Mavs and Suns. I have said that from the beginning, even though you refuse to acknolwedge or comprehend how it might be possible. You laugh because I disagree with some Mavs.com reporter who did nothing but say, in passing, that the role players you hang your hopes on for next season are "apparent" upgrades.

Apparent isn't a convincing word, esp when you are talking about players 9-12 that include the following: a talented yet unproven rookie; an underachieving and overpaid KVH PArt II; Devean George, haha; and a reserrve defender that can't play much offense. And who did they replace? The only player not cloned in the offseason was Marquis Daniels. Yet here you are, ranting on the greatness of Greg Buckner. Buckner? That is where your hopes lie? Let's take a closer look.

In 24 minutes a game, Buckner put a couple more points on the board than Griffin. But at what cost? Griffin shot a much higher % from the floor. Which would aver prefer? Efficiency or sheer points? Speaking of efficienct, NBA.com's efficiency ratings [ ((PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO)) / G) ] reveal Griffin has an +8.77 Eff and Buckner has an +8.68 Eff. Yes, one of the more comprehensive measuring sticks from NBA.com says these players are all but identical, with Griffing having a slight edge. And you want to say the stats support Buckner being the better player? I shake my head at such nonsense.

One thing I would agree with concerning what you said is that stats don't tell everything. I'm not saying you can look at every player's efficiency rating and know if they are better than another. Buckner might be a better fit on the Mavs roster than Griffin even though they are similar players. George might be a great fit; as might Croshere and Ager. What I'm saying is that only Johnson is a significant upgrade. That comes from what I have seen of the players, both their numbers and their leadership skills. These players are nice additions, you might even convince another Mavs fan they are upgrades. But to the non-bias and somewhat educated sports fan these are little more than replacement parts.

Incidentally, I find it ludicrous that you tie the Mavs hopes of winning a le next season to what they did this offseason. Do you really think players 9-12 will be the difference for the Mavs next season? I follow the Mavs fairly closely so let me tell you what to look for next season if the Mavs are to win another le, oops, I mean, a first le.

First, Dirk needs to stay healthy and develop his low-post game. Second, Devan Harris needs to develop into a consistent starter. Third, Josh Howard needs to learn how to stay out of foul trouble and on the floor. Fourth, Diop needs grow and take over as the primary C for the Mavs. Terry's is in the prime of his career, I see no major area of concern for him. But if those four things happen I think the Mavs have a great chance (emphasis on chance) to win their first le.

Along the way their role players will do the same thing they did last year. During the regular season it will really help to have George and Croshere and Ager, but I can only see Johnson making a significant impact in the playoffs.

Depth was a strength of the Mavs in the playoffs against the Spurs. But that had more to do with the Spurs lack of depth when they rendered their two centers useless. The Mavs only played 7-8 guys while the Spurs played 6-7. What the Spurs did this offseason was give themselves 1-2 players that can be used against the Mavs. And that is all they needed. When you feel like you should have won the series in the first place there is no reason to make huge changes.

It would have been nice for the Mavs to acquire Mike James. It would have been nice for the Spurs to acquire Joel Pryzbilla or Alonzo Mourning. Neither happened, but teams went to backup plans. Those backup plans were not significant upgrades, they were subtle changes that may or may not pay dividends when the WCF roll around next year. And that is why we are done talking about players 9-12 on the Mave roster. Because unless something miraculous happens, these players will have no impact on the outcome of what should be another great series between the Mavs and Spurs next season.

Hey why dont you cut out all the bull , that way it should only be a sentence or two and i might actually take the time to read it.

[phyzik]

Hey why dont you cut out all the bull , that way it should only be a sentence or two and i might actually take the time to read it.

ahh.. the old "make fun of post because you just got owned" arguement..

just calling it like I see it.

[JGrice02]

He's my idol now too...the dude just wrote 11 long paragraphs about the Mavericks I think somebody got to him

What can I say? I'm a writer. It's what I love to do...

[JGrice02]

Hey why dont you cut out all the bull , that way it should only be a sentence or two and i might actually take the time to read it.

A concession speech if I have ever seen one. You are making a habit of that on this thread. I have to admit though, this one was much more convincing. You actually have me feeling sorry for you.

[veronicamae]

Am I the only one that's nauseated by all this stupid Mavs-Spurs rivalry? Can we just let it rest for the next 2 months before it starts up again? UGH!

[Mavs_man_41]

A concession speech if I have ever seen one. You are making a habit of that on this thread. I have to admit though, this one was much more convincing. You actually have me feeling sorry for you.

Lmao i am not giving a concession speech, i dont feel like wasting the time arguing with you about something i know is true. And plus every one of your responses are just a big essay of bull . I would much rather have a discussion than an essay writing contest. Please, keep it under 2 paragraphs if you expect me to take the time to read.

[Doug Collins]

Lmao i am not giving a concession speech, i dont feel like wasting the time arguing with you about something i know is true. And plus every one of your responses are just a big essay of bull . I would much rather have a discussion than an essay writing contest. Please, keep it under 2 paragraphs if you expect me to take the time to read.

I can barely read multiple sentence posts let alone something in excess of 700 words. Good god. This is a message board not a thesis review panel.

[mavsfan1000]

Once again you show the inability not only to argue but to comprehend the English language. I have said repeatedly the Mavs upgraded at backup PG and I even said their other moves are upgrades from a fiscal stand point. It was you who argued that the Mavs made significant upgrades furthering the distance between them and a team they were lucky to beat last season.

The Spurs and Mavs were so closely matched that in the fortune was the difference in that series. Every game was close. Every game was exciting. But you act as though the Mavs swept the Spurs on the way to a le. Wake up. The Mavs were fortunate to beat the Spurs and choked against the Heat. Who is insecure?

I have no insecurities about what the Spurs did this offseason because they will only improve our chances against teams like the Mavs and Suns. I have said that from the beginning, even though you refuse to acknolwedge or comprehend how it might be possible. You laugh because I disagree with some Mavs.com reporter who did nothing but say, in passing, that the role players you hang your hopes on for next season are "apparent" upgrades.

Apparent isn't a convincing word, esp when you are talking about players 9-12 that include the following: a talented yet unproven rookie; an underachieving and overpaid KVH PArt II; Devean George, haha; and a reserrve defender that can't play much offense. And who did they replace? The only player not cloned in the offseason was Marquis Daniels. Yet here you are, ranting on the greatness of Greg Buckner. Buckner? That is where your hopes lie? Let's take a closer look.

In 24 minutes a game, Buckner put a couple more points on the board than Griffin. But at what cost? Griffin shot a much higher % from the floor. Which would aver prefer? Efficiency or sheer points? Speaking of efficienct, NBA.com's efficiency ratings [ ((PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO)) / G) ] reveal Griffin has an +8.77 Eff and Buckner has an +8.68 Eff. Yes, one of the more comprehensive measuring sticks from NBA.com says these players are all but identical, with Griffing having a slight edge. And you want to say the stats support Buckner being the better player? I shake my head at such nonsense.

One thing I would agree with concerning what you said is that stats don't tell everything. I'm not saying you can look at every player's efficiency rating and know if they are better than another. Buckner might be a better fit on the Mavs roster than Griffin even though they are similar players. George might be a great fit; as might Croshere and Ager. What I'm saying is that only Johnson is a significant upgrade. That comes from what I have seen of the players, both their numbers and their leadership skills. These players are nice additions, you might even convince another Mavs fan they are upgrades. But to the non-bias and somewhat educated sports fan these are little more than replacement parts.

Incidentally, I find it ludicrous that you tie the Mavs hopes of winning a le next season to what they did this offseason. Do you really think players 9-12 will be the difference for the Mavs next season? I follow the Mavs fairly closely so let me tell you what to look for next season if the Mavs are to win another le, oops, I mean, a first le.

First, Dirk needs to stay healthy and develop his low-post game. Second, Devan Harris needs to develop into a consistent starter. Third, Josh Howard needs to learn how to stay out of foul trouble and on the floor. Fourth, Diop needs grow and take over as the primary C for the Mavs. Terry's is in the prime of his career, I see no major area of concern for him. But if those four things happen I think the Mavs have a great chance (emphasis on chance) to win their first le.

Along the way their role players will do the same thing they did last year. During the regular season it will really help to have George and Croshere and Ager, but I can only see Johnson making a significant impact in the playoffs.

Depth was a strength of the Mavs in the playoffs against the Spurs. But that had more to do with the Spurs lack of depth when they rendered their two centers useless. The Mavs only played 7-8 guys while the Spurs played 6-7. What the Spurs did this offseason was give themselves 1-2 players that can be used against the Mavs. And that is all they needed. When you feel like you should have won the series in the first place there is no reason to make huge changes.

It would have been nice for the Mavs to acquire Mike James. It would have been nice for the Spurs to acquire Joel Pryzbilla or Alonzo Mourning. Neither happened, but teams went to backup plans. Those backup plans were not significant upgrades, they were subtle changes that may or may not pay dividends when the WCF roll around next year. And that is why we are done talking about players 9-12 on the Mave roster. Because unless something miraculous happens, these players will have no impact on the outcome of what should be another great series between the Mavs and Spurs next season.

Yeah if you look at the stats these players aren't upgrades. What they do better is defense. Anyways Ager I think you are underrating. He has already proven he can hit outside shots which is an upgrade over Daniels since Daniels couldn't make one to save his life. I think Devean George along with Buckner will see some minutes. Dallas would be able to backup Harris with Johnson if they decide to start Harris again against San Antonio. You can negate all these acquisitions all you want but in the end of the day Dallas is much better off with having their players rested during the season and being fresh for the playoffs.

[JGrice02]

Lmao i am not giving a concession speech, i dont feel like wasting the time arguing with you about something i know is true. And plus every one of your responses are just a big essay of bull . I would much rather have a discussion than an essay writing contest. Please, keep it under 2 paragraphs if you expect me to take the time to read.

Wow. Talk about high-maintenance. If you don't want to read that's fine with me, but don't pretend to be interested in intellectual conversation when you obviously have no such interest. I find it intriguing that your idea of a conversation is limited to elevator talk. I am supposed to dumb things down for you because you don't have the mental capacity to read 11 paragraphs? What if I broke the exact same post up into 6 separate posts? Woluld that meet your criteria for a "conversation"? Or what if I abandoned the practice of separating my paragraphs? What if I combined the entire post into one run-on sentence? Would you respond to it then?

For some reason I suspect you would find another reason to duck my argument. And for good reason. Every time you try to make a point I squash it. And given that you cannot refute my post in the least I have no doubt you will find another reason to retreat. Hiding behind your own laziness will only work so long. Since you have trouble focusing for more than a minute, I suggest this:

<WARNING: Third paragraph follows. Read at your own risk.>

Start reading the post but stop after 1 minute. When that minute is up go play with your Legos. When you are able, come back to the computer and start reading for another minute. After a couple of hours you will have finished reading the post and building that Doll House out of Legos you always wanted. Then, maybe, you can abandon the world of the gallactically immature and participate in an adult conversation.

[JGrice02]

I can barely read multiple sentence posts let alone something in excess of 700 words. Good god. This is a message board not a thesis review panel.

Thesis are usually in excess of 25,000 words. 700 words is nothing.

[JGrice02]

Yeah if you look at the stats these players aren't upgrades. What they do better is defense. Anyways Ager I think you are underrating. He has already proven he can hit outside shots which is an upgrade over Daniels since Daniels couldn't make one to save his life. I think Devean George along with Buckner will see some minutes. Dallas would be able to backup Harris with Johnson if they decide to start Harris again against San Antonio. You can negate all these acquisitions all you want but in the end of the day Dallas is much better off with having their players rested during the season and being fresh for the playoffs.

When did I negate their acquisitions? I said from the beginning they did a great job of acquiring Johnsons and replacing other role players with cost-efficient players. They maintained a deep bench at a cheaper price. That is a great offseason, especially considering how weak the FA market was this year. My contention was to counter the argument that their moves, recreating the depth of players 9-12 in the rotation, gave them significant separation over the Spurs. Aside from Johnson, I don't see upgrades at any position.

I agree that if Ager can hit outside shots that portion of his game would be an upgrade over Daniels. But let's not forget about Daniels inside game which is remarkable. Remember, you are comparing Daniels to a rookie with no NBA experience. Ager has a lot to prove before anyone can argue he is a upgrade over Daniels. He starts out a downgrade with the potential to be better.

And I completely agree with your assessment of Dallas' bench helping their core players stay fresh for the playoffs. In fact, I thought I said as much earlier. But how is that an improvement over last year? Wasn't that their strength a year ago when they had so many injuries? It was their depth that kept them in the hunt for the Midwest Division. They have always had great depth.

I like the moves Dallas made. They got replacement parts at a much cheaper price. I like the addition of Ager because they have enough depth to let him grow slowly. He could really pay off in a few years. But I think the only significant upgrade is Johnson at backup PG. He is a much better backup than Armstrong. The other acquisitions are replacing identical parts.

[mabber]

When did I negate their acquisitions? I said from the beginning they did a great job of acquiring Johnsons and replacing other role players with cost-efficient players. They maintained a deep bench at a cheaper price. That is a great offseason, especially considering how weak the FA market was this year. My contention was to counter the argument that their moves, recreating the depth of players 9-12 in the rotation, gave them significant separation over the Spurs. Aside from Johnson, I don't see upgrades at any position.

I agree that if Ager can hit outside shots that portion of his game would be an upgrade over Daniels. But let's not forget about Daniels inside game which is remarkable. Remember, you are comparing Daniels to a rookie with no NBA experience. Ager has a lot to prove before anyone can argue he is a upgrade over Daniels. He starts out a downgrade with the potential to be better.

And I completely agree with your assessment of Dallas' bench helping their core players stay fresh for the playoffs. In fact, I thought I said as much earlier. But how is that an improvement over last year? Wasn't that their strength a year ago when they had so many injuries? It was their depth that kept them in the hunt for the Midwest Division. They have always had great depth.

I like the moves Dallas made. They got replacement parts at a much cheaper price. I like the addition of Ager because they have enough depth to let him grow slowly. He could really pay off in a few years. But I think the only significant upgrade is Johnson at backup PG. He is a much better backup than Armstrong. The other acquisitions are replacing identical parts.

I agree with this for the most part. Although calling Daniel's inside game remarkable is a bit much IMO. The following is another perspective from a Mavs writer (in today's paper).

No big changes as Mavs pick up pieces

Coming off Finals trip, team hopes additions upgrade three positions


01:48 AM CDT on Monday, August 7, 2006

By CHUCK CARLTON / The Dallas Morning News

The Mavericks left the really big moves to others this summer.

A team that had a 2 3/4-game lead in the NBA Finals decided it liked a lot of what it already had. Much will look the same for 2006-07, from Dirk Nowitzki to re-signed free agent Jason Terry, from Josh Howard to the revolving, evolving center rotation.

But the changes the Mavericks made could be the difference between another Finals trip and a second-round exit. With 14 roster spots filled, the Mavericks have indicated most of the summer work is completed.

"We haven't quote, unquote arrived," said president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson, citing two vintage '80s dynasties. "We don't see ourselves as the Lakers with Magic, Kareem and Worthy or the Celtics with Bird, McHale and Parish that had perennial runs for eight years and contended for championships every season.

Mavericks / NBA

Mavericks roster
"The field is a lot more even, and the compe ion is stronger now. We can't afford to rest on our laurels."

The off-season plan was to upgrade at three positions, if possible.

The Mavericks sought to improve depth at point guard. They wanted two swingmen who could bring defense, athleticism and playoff experience. They hoped to acquire a power forward to back up Dirk Nowitzki who could shoot and help them spread the floor. Adding an athletic big man project was part of the equation, too.

Not everything came together like the Mavericks planned.

Top free-agent target Mike James spurned similar offers from the Mavericks and Houston to go to Minnesota.

But Anthony Johnson, brought to Dallas in a three-for-one trade with Indiana, is a tough-minded complementary point guard with enough talent to score 40 points in a playoff game last season.

Free agents Greg Buckner, once the Mavericks' defensive conscience, and Devean George, who has been to four Finals, were acquired under the $5.2 million mid-level exception. As a bonus, first-round pick Maurice Ager showed he has an NBA future in the Las Vegas summer league.

Backup power forward Austin Croshere, obtained for enigmatic Marquis Daniels, could be at least as productive as Keith Van Horn. Undrafted rookie Pops Mensah-Bonsu is a 6-9 athlete who will be given time to develop.

The lingering question: Do the Mavericks believe the team they have now is better than the team that finished the playoffs?

"I do," owner Mark Cuban wrote in an e-mail. "We have more depth and athleticism, and we have a lot more flexibility. I think our free-agent signings were the steal of the summer. We never expected we could get both Buck and Devean with our mid-level. We thought both were at least full mid-level, if not higher, players."

If this seems like tinkering around the edges, a little can mean a lot for elite teams.

What if the Mavericks had found some body (or somebody) to at least slow Dwyane Wade in the NBA Finals? Or what if San Antonio's Manu Ginobili doesn't foul Nowitzki at the end of regulation in Game 7 last season?

For now, the Mavericks believe they've answered enough what-ifs.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah if you look at the stats these players aren't upgrades. What they do better is defense.

I don't know that Anthony Johnson or Austin Croshere will ever be considered anything more than a pedestrian defender. Johnson is a good scoring PG, but he's never been a particularly good distributor or defender. He's steady enough, though, and you're right in thinking he may provide some improvement to the Mavs overall complexion. Croshere is tougher than Van Horn (he's a much, much better rebounder) and plays the game with far more intelligence, I think, but he's not as prolific a shooter and certainly not as consistent from behind the arc as Van Horn is. That strikes me as a wash.

Anyways Ager I think you are underrating. He has already proven he can hit outside shots which is an upgrade over Daniels since Daniels couldn't make one to save his life.

When has Ager proven that he can hit outside shots? In college? I don't know that I'd rely on that as an indicator of performance in the NBA -- Trajan Langdon was a wonderful perimeter shooter in college, but it never really translated to the NBA. I'd agree that Daniels is weak from distance and that Ager is likely to be an upgrade, but whether he'll actually get it done in the NBA is another question. This wasn't a particularly good draft and Ager was still around at the end of Round 1, which suggests to me that NBA teams have some questions about how well his game will translate. Teams have certainly been wrong before with guys like Josh Howard, Tony Parker, and Rashard Lewis, but Ager has some proving to do before he becomes a guy like one of those players. For his sake, I hope Ager proves you right, but I don't know that you can say that he's proven anything yet.

I think Devean George along with Buckner will see some minutes.

Sure, but at whose expense. We saw that when Dallas played the most formidable teams it faced last year, AJ had some decisions to make about how to use his various luxuries -- he canned Griffin during the San Antonio series, for example, because he needed to get minutes for Harris and Stackhouse. If they're going to play Buckner and George as regular rotation players at playoff time, they're going to be cutting into the minutes that could be used for someone else, and I can't see AJ doing that against San Antonio.

Dallas would be able to backup Harris with Johnson if they decide to start Harris again against San Antonio. You can negate all these acquisitions all you want but in the end of the day Dallas is much better off with having their players rested during the season and being fresh for the playoffs.

That's all fine and dandy, but you were leading the charge last season telling us how deep the Mavericks were and what a difference that would make. The Spurs went 10 deep most nights during the 2005-06 regular season, couldn't win back-to-backs to save their lives, and still had the best record in the West, despite the fact that Mavs fan was convinced all year that Dallas had the deeper team.

The Mavs are deeper, on paper. But the moves they've made have also made them older than they were last year -- Johnson, Croshere, George, and Buckner are all generally older than the guys they're replacing, and all of them are injury-prone to some degree -- all 4 missed at least 10 games last season with injury; by my count, none has played an entire 82 game season in recent memory.

Here's a tidbit: on most nights next season, the Spurs will have 3 guys on their bench who will be 26 years old or younger on opening night (Udrih, Bonner, and Butler); the Mavericks, when at their optimum, are likely to have only one such player (Ager).

[FromWayDowntown]

A Mav writer's perspective for what it's worth...

Wow Factor
Mavs' Roster Seems Loaded For '06

By Mike Fisher -- DallasBasketball.com

Mike Fisher is a total Mavs homer and a complete hack.

[mabber]

I don't know that Anthony Johnson or Austin Croshere will ever be considered anything more than a pedestrian defender. Johnson is a good scoring PG, but he's never been a particularly good distributor or defender. He's steady enough, though, and you're right in thinking he may provide some improvement to the Mavs overall complexion. Croshere is tougher than Van Horn (he's a much, much better rebounder) and plays the game with far more intelligence, I think, but he's not as prolific a shooter and certainly not as consistent from behind the arc as Van Horn is. That strikes me as a wash.



When has Ager proven that he can hit outside shots? In college? I don't know that I'd rely on that as an indicator of performance in the NBA -- Trajan Langdon was a wonderful perimeter shooter in college, but it never really translated to the NBA. I'd agree that Daniels is weak from distance and that Ager is likely to be an upgrade, but whether he'll actually get it done in the NBA is another question. This wasn't a particularly good draft and Ager was still around at the end of Round 1, which suggests to me that NBA teams have some questions about how well his game will translate. Teams have certainly been wrong before with guys like Josh Howard, Tony Parker, and Rashard Lewis, but Ager has some proving to do before he becomes a guy like one of those players. For his sake, I hope Ager proves you right, but I don't know that you can say that he's proven anything yet.



Sure, but at whose expense. We saw that when Dallas played the most formidable teams it faced last year, AJ had some decisions to make about how to use his various luxuries -- he canned Griffin during the San Antonio series, for example, because he needed to get minutes for Harris and Stackhouse. If they're going to play Buckner and George as regular rotation players at playoff time, they're going to be cutting into the minutes that could be used for someone else, and I can't see AJ doing that against San Antonio.



That's all fine and dandy, but you were leading the charge last season telling us how deep the Mavericks were and what a difference that would make. The Spurs went 10 deep most nights during the 2005-06 regular season, couldn't win back-to-backs to save their lives, and still had the best record in the West, despite the fact that Mavs fan was convinced all year that Dallas had the deeper team.

The Mavs are deeper, on paper. But the moves they've made have also made them older than they were last year -- Johnson, Croshere, George, and Buckner are all generally older than the guys they're replacing, and all of them are injury-prone to some degree -- all 4 missed at least 10 games last season with injury; by my count, none has played an entire 82 game season in recent memory.

Here's a tidbit: on most nights next season, the Spurs will have 3 guys on their bench who will be 26 years old or younger on opening night (Udrih, Bonner, and Butler); the Mavericks, when at their optimum, are likely to have only one such player (Ager).

Johnson (31) is much younger than Armstrong (38), Croshere (31) is same age as Van Horn (31), Buckner (29) is younger than Griffin (32) and Ager (22) is younger than Daniels (25). George is only player we picked up that's older than who he's replacing (Powell or Marshall) and George is only 28 years old.

Buckner is the only one of the new guys that I would consider slightly injury prone and his games played has been much better over the last 2-3 years.

[Solid D]

I'll bet if Kori, timvp or a mod changed the le of this thread to something else like, "Spurs to win opener" or "lame arguments thread", it wouldn't keep ending up (or bumping up) at the top of Page 1.

[FromWayDowntown]

Johnson (31) is much younger than Armstrong (38), Croshere (31) is same age as Van Horn (31), Buckner (29) is younger than Griffin (32) and Ager (22) is younger than Daniels (25). George is only player we picked up that's older than who he's replacing (Powell or Marshall) and George is only 28 years old.

Johnson will be 32 on opening night and in a real sense, the guy he's replacing on the Mavericks' bench is Harris, not Armstrong. Buckner will be 30 on opening night, too. Many of your Mav fan colleauges are insistent that Tim Duncan is "old" because he's 30. I'm just noting that the same applies to the guys the Mavs have picked up this summer.

You're right about the Croshere/Van Horn combo -- for some reason, I had thought Croshere had been in the league a bit longer. Bad research on my part.

I'll also admit that I went too fast on saying that Buckner and Johnson missed more than 10 games last year -- Buckner missed 8 and Johnson missed 6.

[mabber]

Johnson will be 32 on opening night and in a real sense, the guy he's replacing on the Mavericks' bench is Harris, not Armstrong. Buckner will be 30 on opening night, too. Many of your Mav fan colleauges are insistent that Tim Duncan is "old" because he's 30. I'm just noting that the same applies to the guys the Mavs have picked up this summer.

You're right about the Croshere/Van Horn combo -- for some reason, I had thought Croshere had been in the league a bit longer. Bad research on my part.

I'll also admit that I went too fast on saying that Buckner and Johnson missed more than 10 games last year -- Buckner missed 8 and Johnson missed 6.

I hope he's not replacing Harris. I really don't know how that's gonna play out yet but either way Armstrong is being replaced by Johnson or Harris and both are much younger.

I think this is a ridiculous argument anyone as the only thing upgrading our depth is going to do is help in case of injuries and/or maybe rest players more in the regular season. I've just been making comments to certain posts for the of it anyway.

You know the Mavs pretty well for not following them as closely as I do but some of your fellow Spur posters are fairly clueless in regards to the Mavs. I generally stay away from talking about the Spurs in detail cuz I just don't know them as well as a lot of your Spur fans do.

[Mavs_man_41]

Wow. Talk about high-maintenance. If you don't want to read that's fine with me, but don't pretend to be interested in intellectual conversation when you obviously have no such interest. I find it intriguing that your idea of a conversation is limited to elevator talk. I am supposed to dumb things down for you because you don't have the mental capacity to read 11 paragraphs? What if I broke the exact same post up into 6 separate posts? Woluld that meet your criteria for a "conversation"? Or what if I abandoned the practice of separating my paragraphs? What if I combined the entire post into one run-on sentence? Would you respond to it then?

For some reason I suspect you would find another reason to duck my argument. And for good reason. Every time you try to make a point I squash it. And given that you cannot refute my post in the least I have no doubt you will find another reason to retreat. Hiding behind your own laziness will only work so long. Since you have trouble focusing for more than a minute, I suggest this:

<WARNING: Third paragraph follows. Read at your own risk.>

Start reading the post but stop after 1 minute. When that minute is up go play with your Legos. When you are able, come back to the computer and start reading for another minute. After a couple of hours you will have finished reading the post and building that Doll House out of Legos you always wanted. Then, maybe, you can abandon the world of the gallactically immature and participate in an adult conversation.

Is that supposed to be funny? I just dont feel like wasting 10 minutes replying to one of your essays. Just keep it short and to the point im not reading something 700 words long.

[Mavs_man_41]

The Mavs are deeper, on paper.

That's the point I have been trying to get across to JGrice throughout this entire thread. It would appear the mavs are a little deeper, but on paper doesnt always translate to on the court by any means. We will just have to wait and see if it holds up once the season gets going.

[confined]

I don't know that Anthony Johnson or Austin Croshere will ever be considered anything more than a pedestrian defender. Johnson is a good scoring PG, but he's never been a particularly good distributor or defender. He's steady enough, though, and you're right in thinking he may provide some improvement to the Mavs overall complexion. Croshere is tougher than Van Horn (he's a much, much better rebounder) and plays the game with far more intelligence, I think, but he's not as prolific a shooter and certainly not as consistent from behind the arc as Van Horn is. That strikes me as a wash.



When has Ager proven that he can hit outside shots? In college? I don't know that I'd rely on that as an indicator of performance in the NBA -- Trajan Langdon was a wonderful perimeter shooter in college, but it never really translated to the NBA. I'd agree that Daniels is weak from distance and that Ager is likely to be an upgrade, but whether he'll actually get it done in the NBA is another question. This wasn't a particularly good draft and Ager was still around at the end of Round 1, which suggests to me that NBA teams have some questions about how well his game will translate. Teams have certainly been wrong before with guys like Josh Howard, Tony Parker, and Rashard Lewis, but Ager has some proving to do before he becomes a guy like one of those players. For his sake, I hope Ager proves you right, but I don't know that you can say that he's proven anything yet.



Sure, but at whose expense. We saw that when Dallas played the most formidable teams it faced last year, AJ had some decisions to make about how to use his various luxuries -- he canned Griffin during the San Antonio series, for example, because he needed to get minutes for Harris and Stackhouse. If they're going to play Buckner and George as regular rotation players at playoff time, they're going to be cutting into the minutes that could be used for someone else, and I can't see AJ doing that against San Antonio.



That's all fine and dandy, but you were leading the charge last season telling us how deep the Mavericks were and what a difference that would make. The Spurs went 10 deep most nights during the 2005-06 regular season, couldn't win back-to-backs to save their lives, and still had the best record in the West, despite the fact that Mavs fan was convinced all year that Dallas had the deeper team.

The Mavs are deeper, on paper. But the moves they've made have also made them older than they were last year -- Johnson, Croshere, George, and Buckner are all generally older than the guys they're replacing, and all of them are injury-prone to some degree -- all 4 missed at least 10 games last season with injury; by my count, none has played an entire 82 game season in recent memory.

Here's a tidbit: on most nights next season, the Spurs will have 3 guys on their bench who will be 26 years old or younger on opening night (Udrih, Bonner, and Butler); the Mavericks, when at their optimum, are likely to have only one such player (Ager).

blah blah blah thats all i hear....cant ya just get ur point across in a nuts ?

[FromWayDowntown]

I hope he's not replacing Harris. I really don't know how that's gonna play out yet but either way Armstrong is being replaced by Johnson or Harris and both are much younger.

Functionally, Johnson replaces Harris. Harris becomes the starter (presumably) and the spot that Harris once occupied on the bench will be assumed by Johnson, making Johnson the Harris replacement and not an Armstrong replacement. If the Mavs sign someone to be a 3rd point, that guy will be the Armstrong replacement in my mind.

I think this is a ridiculous argument anyone as the only thing upgrading our depth is going to do is help in case of injuries and/or maybe rest players more in the regular season.

I don't dispute the truth of any of that. It's like the ridiculous argument that matches up position by position to weigh the strengths of the players and claim that one team is better than another.

In the end, there's a monumental difference between the functional depth of a roster during the regular season and its depth in a playoff setting -- and I think playoff depth becomes largely a matter of flexibility and matchups.

The Spurs were deep enough to win 63 games last regular season, despite their issues with back-to-backs and limiting injuries to Duncan and Ginobili. Parker was a huge part of that, but the Spurs' bench was deep enough to make that happen on most nights. When they got into playoff situations, though, Sacramento and Dallas were able to exploit the weaknesses in the Spurs roster (lack of athleticism without going small and an inability of the small lineup to rebound well) and that doomed the Spurs because they didn't have the flexibility to adjust well to different styles of play.

I think the Spurs are far, far more flexible heading into 2006-07 than they proved to be in 2005-06. I think the Mavs are probably more talented from 1-12, but I think the Spurs are at least as talented as the Mavs from about 1-7 or 1-8 and I think the Spurs are far better situated to deal with the Mavs personnel than they were last year. (I also think the Spurs will still make another move to ensure that is true.)