GeorgeMarcus wrote:MrDollarBills wrote:GeorgeMarcus wrote:
Nope, not moving goalposts. You’re missing the point. The Nets were able to win 42 games largely in part to the contributions of the guys they sent packing (the ones who weren’t negative on the court). THAT is the point. Joe Harris just wasn’t as vital to your team as you’re making him out to be.
This dude doesn't know what the **** he's talking about, told yall
He watched 5 playoff games and comes on here acting like he has a clue, it's hilarious
MrDollarBills wrote:Dude thinks that Traveon Graham and Shabazz Napier were more important than Joe Harris. There is no way in hell anyone could have watched the Nets last season and would think that or even remotely downplay Harris' impact on the court.
Harris hit so many clutch shots in tight games I lost count.
Your whole argument is putting words in my mouth that I never came close to saying
I'm sorry your team won't be viewed as a legitimate threat next year but that's just the way it is...
Just so we're clear, the *best case* justification for the numbers in the OP is that your starting lineup was sub average but your bench was good enough to hover around .500. The alternative being: not only were your starters sub average, but they were also worse than your backups who you just sent packing. Apparently you attribute the latter belief to me even though I never expressed those feelings. Neither case gets you to 50 wins though without severely overrating Kyrie/DeAndre and company
You are utterly clueless. You cherry pick on/off stats to try and paint a picture that these players:
GeorgeMarcus wrote:Last season, 12 Brooklyn Nets played 900+ minutes. Their on/off numbers were as follows:
Ed Davis - +6.7
DeMarre Carroll - +3.8
Jared Dudley - +2.4
Shabazz Napier - +1.5
D'Angelo Russell - +0.7
Rondae Hollis Jefferson - +0.7
being gone are a reason why the Nets won't be a good team, or will take a step backwards. That is total nonsense. Everyone who was lost outside of Russell and Davis were nowhere near as impactful as you think.
Ed Davis was a solid back up, but the Nets routinely got mauled by opposing big men.
Demarre Carroll was a good vet, but his numbers were declining that year and he shot poorly.
Jared Dudley was a solid veteran presence but he missed significant time and the Nets still won without him. His production was also meager.
Shabazz Napier was in and out of the rotation. Easily replaceable. The fact that you even attempt to paint a picture that his on court impact is greater than Spencer Dinwiddie's is laughable. You literally watched five games of the Nets last season..okay maybe 9 if we count regular season. Either way...you're clueless.
Now we get to D'Angelo Russell. He was a huge part of our success last season...but so was Spencer Dinwiddie, Caris LeVert, Jarrett Allen, Joe Harris, and Rodions Kurucs, all players that you tried to discredit by using on/off without any context. He will be missed, but Kyrie Irving is a superior player to him and will feast in the Nets offense. So, we have upgraded here.
Rondae Hollis Jefferson was often injured, played terribly, and got his rotation spot taken by a 20 year old rookie in Rodions Kurucs who outplayed him all year long. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to believe that a guy that wasn't even in the rotation being sent packing is going to set the Nets back?
Did you even think this through before posting, or in your rush to be a complete troll you decided to just toss this out there thinking that no one would fact check you on it?
Saying that the Nets starters were worse than their back ups, some of whom barely played, solely based on on/off, is flat out moronic. Also, all of the players outside of Ed Davis and D'Angelo Russell that got sent out have awful metrics and the players brought in to replace them are all better players (if you want to debate Davis vs. Jordan, by all means, I liked Ed Davis but even his numbers aren't better than Jordan's, who is a shell of his former self). I don't care who views the Nets as a "legitimate threat", especially most of all, you, someone who talks a lot but knows very little.
We'll be on national television plenty next season, so maybe the next time you have the gall to make threads about a team you don't watch, you'll know a bit more.
