GT#62: Wizards @ Los Nets |3/8| 7:30pm | YES

Paradise · Post #1 » by **Paradise** » Thu Mar 7, 2013 7:32 am

#BrickSquad

VS

Good luck charms:

wu-massacre · Post #2 » by **wu-massacre** » Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:33 am

Bradley Beal might be out so I guess that something less to worry about

JDoc311 · Post #3 » by **JDoc311** » Thu Mar 7, 2013 12:19 pm

So this is where the NetsDaily fallen reside, I hear?

Ronito · Post #4 » by **Ronito** » Thu Mar 7, 2013 7:51 pm

Hoping for Blatche/Lopez together. Also any unit with Joe at the 3 with Watson/Bogans at the 2.

NetsFanFromNJ · Post #5 » by **NetsFanFromNJ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:16 pm

Ronito wrote:Hoping for Blatche/Lopez together. Also any unit with Joe at the 3 with Watson/Bogans at the 2.

You like the 2 PG lineup with D-will at the 1 and Watson at the 2?

DWILLoftheGODZ · Post #6 » by **DWILLoftheGODZ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:49 pm

JDoc311 wrote:So this is where the NetsDaily fallen reside, I hear?

Pretty much.

Piffbreezy · Post #7 » by **Piffbreezy** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 4:53 pm

We need a win tonight, get a couple consecutive wins and maybe a bit of a hot streak going into the playoffs. No reason we can't go 5-1 over the next 6. A lineup I would love to see at some point is Dwill-Bogans-Joe-Blatche-Lopez, if only to see how it looks for a few possessions. Don't think I've seen it yet and I feel the floor is completely open in that lineup and feel it could be extremely potent offensively and decent defensively.

DWILLoftheGODZ · Post #8 » by **DWILLoftheGODZ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 5:00 pm

Piffbreezy wrote:We need a win tonight, get a couple consecutive wins and maybe a bit of a hot streak going into the playoffs. No reason we can't go 5-1 over the next 6. A lineup I would love to see at some point is Dwill-Bogans-Joe-Blatche-Lopez, if only to see how it looks for a few possessions. Don't think I've seen it yet and I feel the floor is completely open in that lineup and feel it could be extremely potent offensively and decent defensively.

DWill-Bogans-Joe-Blatche-Lopez should be the starting 5.

Piffbreezy · Post #9 » by **Piffbreezy** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 5:43 pm

DWILLoftheGODZ wrote:
Piffbreezy wrote:We need a win tonight, get a couple consecutive wins and maybe a bit of a hot streak going into the playoffs. No reason we can't go 5-1 over the next 6. A lineup I would love to see at some point is Dwill-Bogans-Joe-Blatche-Lopez, if only to see how it looks for a few possessions. Don't think I've seen it yet and I feel the floor is completely open in that lineup and feel it could be extremely potent offensively and decent defensively.

DWill-Bogans-Joe-Blatche-Lopez should be the starting 5.

I wholeheartedly agree but for some reason our coaching staff thinks Evans and Wallace are the best thing since sliced bread. With that lineup it reminds me of the grizz with Rudy but with better guard play offensively. Can't imagine why we can't emulate that kind of success.

MrDollarBills · Post #10 » by **MrDollarBills** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 6:42 pm

Starting that line up would put opponents into tougher match ups, but of course, the coaching staff would opt to give the worst starting forward combo in the league another chance to stink up the goddamn gym

M I K E · Post #11 » by **M I K E** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 7:21 pm

If you play Lopez and Blatche together who plays center when they sit down ? If we move JJ to SF and start Bogans at SG what will our second unit look like ?

Watson
Brooks
Wallace
Teletovic
Evans

Please shoot me now ! :roll:

Piffbreezy · Post #12 » by **Piffbreezy** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 7:50 pm

M I K E wrote:If you play Lopez and Blatche together who plays center when they sit down ? If we move JJ to SF and start Bogans at SG what will our second unit look like ?

Watson
Brooks
Wallace
Teletovic
Evans

Please shoot me now !

Yes those would be our reserves. It's not like we sub out 5 players all at the same time though. It's a rotation, we could have another combo of that where we always have a starter or two on the floor. I don't expect that exact five to be on the floor unless its looking like a blow out, or there's foul trouble.

If Hump didn't fall out of the rotation I'd say play him in spurts at back up C, especially if the other team back up bigs are small but I guess PJ will have none of that.

Ronito · Post #13 » by **Ronito** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 8:08 pm

M I K E wrote:If you play Lopez and Blatche together who plays center when they sit down ? If we move JJ to SF and start Bogans at SG what will our second unit look like ?

Watson
Brooks
Wallace
Teletovic
Evans

Please shoot me now !

If a head coach knows how a rotation works, it's not a big deal. But P.J. enjoys playing the entire bench units at times, so it would be.

PetroNet · Post #14 » by **PetroNet** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 10:33 pm

NetsFanFromNJ wrote:
Ronito wrote:Hoping for Blatche/Lopez together. Also any unit with Joe at the 3 with Watson/Bogans at the 2.

You like the 2 PG lineup with D-will at the 1 and Watson at the 2?

yes... i DONT like that exact same lineup when its watson and the 1 and dwill at the 2, which thankfully, PJ hasnt done much of

NetsFanFromNJ · Post #15 » by **NetsFanFromNJ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 11:36 pm

Just under a hour until tip-off

NetsFanFromNJ · Post #16 » by **NetsFanFromNJ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 11:49 pm

Bradley Beal (ankle) will not play in Friday's game against the Nets.

Source: Wizards on Twitter Mar 8 - 6:26 PM

There's no reason why the Nets shouldn't win this game by a comfortable amount.

NetsFanFromNJ · Post #17 » by **NetsFanFromNJ** » Fri Mar 8, 2013 11:52 pm

D-Will, Joe Johnson, Wallace, Evans, and Lopez starting for the Nets.

CntOutSmrtCrazy · Post #18 » by **CntOutSmrtCrazy** » Sat Mar 9, 2013 12:04 am

Who's that first lady? She bad.

DWILLoftheGODZ · Post #19 » by **DWILLoftheGODZ** » Sat Mar 9, 2013 12:10 am

PJ should consider giving Taylor Watson's minutes tonight to better match up with Washington's speed. Taylor can stay in front of Wall

therealbig3 · Post #20 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Mar 9, 2013 12:11 am

NetsFanFromNJ wrote:There's no reason why the Nets shouldn't win this game by a comfortable amount.

Which means they're not going to win this game by a comfortable amount.