Nets Ranked #3, #8, #13, #17, #23
by Net Income on Aug 27, 2010 5:11 PM EDT
Email
PrintKelly Dwyer is done ranking all the NBA starters by position and the five players he believes will start for the Nets rank anywhere from #3, Brook Lopez at center; to #23, Anthony Morrow at shooting guard. Dwyer also ranks Devin Harris at #8 among point guards; Troy Murphy at #13 among power forwards and Travis Outlaw at #17 among small forwards.
Dwyer gives his strongest endorsement to Lopez who he ranks behind Dwight Howard and Andrew Bogut: "He still remains really, truly underrated. He's not a stat hound, he doesn't do anything at the expense of winning and he just piles up the points and rebounds. He averaged 18.8 points and 8.6 rebounds last season with 1.7 blocks and 2.3 assists.
"I'd really like the Nets to add 30 wins to last season's totals so people would stop looking at this 22-year-old with such a jaundiced eye."
- Ranking the centers, 11 through 1 - Kelly Dwyer - Yahoo! Sports
- Ranking the point guards, 10 through No. 1 - Kelly Dwyer - Yahoo! Sports
- Ranking the power forwards, 20 through 11 - Kelly Dwyer - Yahoo! Sports
- Ranking the small forwards, 20 through 11 - Kelly Dwyer - Yahoo! Sports
- Ranking the shooting guards, 30 through 21 - Kelly Dwyer - Yahoo! Sports
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I ranked them pretty close to him
http://www.netsdaily.com/2010/8/22/1635884/my-nba-standings-prediction-for
"I want to win, I want the team to win and I'm in complete control."
-Coach Avery Johnson.
by Andy. on Aug 27, 2010 5:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Now if we just add the 3rd best small forward in the league, we'd have 3 guy in the top 10 of their position
A lot of other teams have 2 or 3 guys as well, but these are the good teams. San Antonio, the Lakers, the cHeat, Boston, etc
To say that you have 2 guys in the top ten at their position, you are saying that you have 2 guys in the top 1/3 in the league really, which isn’t really saying much. Its not just the Spurs and Lakers that have 2 guys in the top ten, lots of teams do. So saying “if we can just add the 3rd best SF we would have 3 top ten guys” is saying what a lot of teams can say.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 27, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Example of a poor team with 2 top ten guys
Grizzlies actually ALREADY have 3 top ten guys: Gasol and Gay and Randolph and are pretty poor (sub .500), in fact they add to that a top 20 SG.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 27, 2010 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Memphis was actually pretty decent last year
and I think they’ll be even better this year… 40 wins is not that bad…
I think Memphis will be one of the best on te west this season
"I want to win, I want the team to win and I'm in complete control."
-Coach Avery Johnson.
by Andy. on Aug 27, 2010 7:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
One of the best of the Western Conference?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
40 in the West was good
They probably would have been a middle-low seed in the East, ahead of Charlotte, Milwaukee and Miami.
by Jack Handy Jr on Aug 27, 2010 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions
If the point is that the Nets can make the playoffs as a low seed if they get Melo
I completely agree, but that is about it.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
That Wasn't The Point
Point was, they were not a “poor” team. They were pretty much as average as you can get. Calling them “poor” was rather exaggerated and negative… shocking.
Meanwhile what is your point?
Are you against trading for Melo?
And what does Melo have to do with what I said?
But, if they did, NJ would have 2 players, arguably top 3 at their respective positions in Melo and Lopez… in many rankings. I don’t think Memphis has comes close to that.
by Jack Handy Jr on Aug 28, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I consider a sub 500 team pretty poor. The separation between the bottom of the league and the middle of the league is much, much less than the middle of the league from the top of the league (the top of the league is driven by the presence of elite players of which there are only a few). The Grizzlies were a pretty poor team, as was Toronto (which finished with the same record).
The Grizzlies are much closer to the Nets (the worse team last year) than they are to the Lakers (the best). This goes exactly to muwu’s point, which was that having two players in the top 10 was supposedly a sign of being a pretty good team (examples given, the Spurs and the Lakers).
Meanwhile what is your point?
Are you against trading for Melo?
And what does Melo have to do with what I said?
What does Melo have to do with what you said??? My comment was in response to muwu’s comment regarding adding Melo which then would transform the Nets into a pretty good team (ie. join the ranks of team exemplified by the Lakers and the Spurs).
In case you missed it, this was the comment which is being commented on:
A lot of other teams have 2 or 3 guys as well, but these are the good teams. San Antonio, the Lakers, the cHeat, Boston, etcNow if we just add the 3rd best small forward in the league, we’d have 3 guy in the top 10 of their position
In response to your:
But, if they did, NJ would have 2 players, arguably top 3 at their respective positions in Melo and Lopez… in many rankings. I don’t think Memphis has comes close to that.
This level of skill is still not Gold Level superstar which is required for championship runs. These are Bronze level (top 15 in the league) players, and if this is the salary limit of your team you would have sealed out any championship aspirations. The Nets would certainly not be better than the Denver team that Melo just left, in particular on the defensive end which is where playoff basketball is won and lost.
As whether a 3, a 3, an 8, a 13 and a 24 (at position) is all that better than Grizzlies 9, 10, 18, 9 (is there that big a difference between Lopez and Gasol, I don’t think so), I’m not sure. Both are early playoff exit teams. So to answer your question, I’m only for trading for Melo if the team retains flexibility to improve its roster further. Otherwise its a deadend.
I might also add, Melo isn’t coming to the Nets, the Nets are being played.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Further
If you want to make a big deal about being a “top three” rating, then we would really have to open up the question of whether Dwyer’s ratings are deserved. The difference between being a dominate, elite player that you can build championship team around and “arguably a top three player at your position” is potentially immense.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Here is a comparison between Lopez and M. Gasol, supposedly the difference between the 3rd and 9th best center
Lopez scores more points, but in nearly every other metric, especially FG%s and on/off points Marc Gasol is superior.
B. Lopez / M. Gasol
Per 36 pts 18.3, 14.7
Per 36 rbs 8.9, 9
Per 36 assists 1.8, 2.2
Jump shot FG% 37, 45
Close FG% 52, 61
Crunch FG% 44, 51
Foul Drawing 17.4, 20
Passing Rating 3.3, 3.4
Rb rating 24.8, 28
Block Rating 7.3, 6.5
Hands Rating 9.7, 9.6
PER 22.5, 21.5
opp PER 21.3, 17.4
Net PER 2.2, 4.2
on/off net pts -2.2, 10
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I consider a sub 500 team pretty poor. The separation between the bottom of the league and the middle of the league is much, much less than the middle of the league from the top of the league (the top of the league is driven by the presence of elite players of which there are only a few). The Grizzlies were a pretty poor team, as was Toronto (which finished with the same record).
Only in KV world where the negative is accentuated and exaggerated at every chance, since that is your “shtick”..your attempt to “keep it real”, and fight the “pom-pom wavers” who you generalize and lump together as every single Net fan, instead of specifically naming and addressing individuals, was Memphis a poor team.
If only we could be as “objective” as you KV, and come into every thread only looking to point out where people are “wrong”, where they are “waving pom-poms” and simply put argue for the sake of arguing.
Memphis was 1 game below .500 in the better conference.
They are as average as you can get. They has a -1.5 PPG differential. The only team closer to 0.0 (average) was Houston at -0.4.
That is all I was pointing out.
What does Melo have to do with what you said??? My comment was in response to muwu’s comment regarding adding Melo which then would transform the Nets into a pretty good team (ie. join the ranks of team exemplified by the Lakers and the Spurs).
You responded to my post.
My post had no mention of Melo, I was imply rebuking your absurd (again an exaggerated negative, your MO) claim that Memphis was a “poor” team.
I might also add, Melo isn’t coming to the Nets, the Nets are being played.
If the cost is Lopez or something else prohibitive I agree.
My max offer would be.
T.Williams
D.James
Murphy
2 #1’s
2 #2’s
No Favors, no Lopez.
by Jack Handy Jr on Aug 28, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Memphis was 1 game below .500 in the better conference.
They are as average as you can get. They has a -1.5 PPG differential. The only team closer to 0.0 (average) was Houston at -0.4.
That is all I was pointing out.
I have a different standard of what a “good” team is, and supposed I am not defined by just being happy to have a team not in the bottom of the league. There is ONE goal, and that goal is to have a team that is challenging for the championship, generally, and on a regular basis. The way that league is structured is that the bottom teams and the middling teams are in the SAME boat. In fact, the bottom teams are often CLOSER to a championship than the middling teams. This is not my "shtick", this is my philosophy and evaluation. If a team is headed towards perpetual early round exits in the playoffs with NO ceiling to go higher, they are not a “good” team.
My post had no mention of Melo, I was imply rebuking your absurd (again an exaggerated negative, your MO) claim that Memphis was a "poor" team.
Because you were not paying attention to the conversion that was being had, you didn’t understand the meaning of the valuation “pretty poor”. (When entering a dialogue, scroll up.) The valuation “pretty poor” was made on the scale of muwu’s “good”, pay attention.
good teams. San Antonio, the Lakers, the cHeat, Boston
Muwu called these teams (which he imagined the Nets could be compared to “good”. Well, if these teams are merely “good” then the Grizzlies are “pretty poor”. Its not that hard to understand, unless you read in a vaccum, which seems to be a skill of yours.
T.Williams
D.James
Murphy
2 #1’s
2 #2’s
No Favors, no Lopez.
Melo is not coming to a franchise that has NO chance of winning a title, I don’t care how much money he gets paid. Prestige outweighs dollars.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a different standard of what a "good" team is, and supposed I am not defined by just being happy to have a team not in the bottom of the league. There is ONE goal, and that goal is to have a team that is challenging for the championship, generally, and on a regular basis. The way that league is structured is that the bottom teams and the middling teams are in the SAME boat. In fact, the bottom teams are often CLOSER to a championship than the middling teams. This is not my “shtick”, this is my philosophy and evaluation. If a team is headed towards perpetual early round exits in the playoffs with NO ceiling to go higher, they are not a "good" team.
There are elite teams, good teams, average teams (like Memphis), bad teams and awful teams (like NJ last year)
It is not just good (winning titles) and poor (everyone else).
There are shades of gray.
Memphis was not a poor time.
They were about as average as one could get, and probably would have been a 6 or 7 seed in the East.
Your arbitrary statements mean nothing when they don’t make sense. There are average teams and Memphis was one.
Because you were not paying attention to the conversion that was being had, you didn’t understand the meaning of the valuation "pretty poor". (When entering a dialogue, scroll up.) The valuation "pretty poor" was made on the scale of muwu’s "good", pay attention.
You specifically replied to me.
I did not mention Melo.
If you wanted to reply to Muwu, re-reply to his specific post or address him, not me.
Melo is not coming to a franchise that has NO chance of winning a title, I don’t care how much money he gets paid. Prestige outweighs dollars.
As usual you did not address anything with this response.
Meanwhile, if he truly thought that his agents would not have supposedly said he would agree to a trade to NY, Houston or LAC. The only teams that are going to be able to win titles anytime soon are Miami, LAL, Boston and Orlando.
by Jack Handy Jr on Aug 28, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
There are elite teams, good teams, average teams (like Memphis), bad teams and awful teams (like NJ last year)
If the Lakers and the Spurs are merely “good” (as muwu said) then the Grizzlies are pretty poor. And from the stand point of a Laker fan (as I am as well), the Grizzlies are not a very good team at all. They are average, and average in the NBA is pretty poor in my view. The distance from “average” and very bad isn’t that great. For instance last year the Nets were horrible, but I don’t think it impossible that they play nearly as well as the Grizzlies this year, but it is next to impossible for the Grizzlies to have year like the Lakers.
Your arbitrary statements mean nothing when they don’t make sense. There are average teams and Memphis was one.
Statements are not arbitrary when they have stated values in the context of criteria in mind. My statement was in response to the claim that the Lakers, Spurs and the Heat were merely “good” teams and that the Nets could be like them.
You specifically replied to me.
I did not mention Melo.
Let me explain this to you in case you don’t know how threads work. When a comment is under (indented) another comment, and comment upon that comment, you are in the context of the comment that leads the string. YOUR comment was in the context of MY response to Muwu’s claim. Claiming the Memphis actually had a good year without pay attention to the string is simply not paying attention.
Meanwhile, if he truly thought that his agents would not have supposedly said he would agree to a trade to NY, Houston or LAC.
I guess you don’t understand how negotiations work. You try to pull as many teams into the process as is possible to drive up the price and give yourself leverage. Weren’t you paying attention to Lebron-a-thon. Do you honestly thing Lebron was ever going to come to the Nets????
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Here, let me recap the progression
1. Muwu said that if the Nets get 3 players in the top ten of their position they will be like a “good” team (Lakers, Spurs, Heat).
2. I say that having multiple players in the top 10 of their position isn’t really that special, and that the Grizzlies ALREADY have 3 guys in the top 10. And they are not “good” (like the Lakers, Heat and Spurs), but are pretty poor (qualified as sub .500).
3. You then jump in and say "Hey, they weren’t pretty poor, they actually were “good” (not understanding that “good” has already been used to describe the Lakers, Spurs and Heat).
4. So you (outside of the context of the claims of “good” and “pretty poor” that were being discussed) think that a team that is sub .500 and missing the playoffs by a fairly wide margin (10 wins short), as a fan of the team of the worst team in the league last year, think that the Grizzlies were a “good” team. And I, as a fan of the best team in the league think that a sub .500 team, 10 wins short of the playoffs was a “pretty poor” team. This seems like we have very different standards of “good” and excellent.
A “good” team last year, to me, was the Thunder or Utah, a team that made the playoffs and showed the capacity to do something once there. This may just be a perspective of what is “good” given the teams we are fans of.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Only in KV world where the negative is accentuated and exaggerated at every chance, since that is your "shtick"..your attempt to "keep it real"… was Memphis a poor team.
Perhaps my shtick will make more sense to you, that is, my evaluation standard, if you realize that I am and have been for a very long time BOTH a Laker fan and a Net fan. I know the kinds of fan-reactions of a perpetually winning franchise and a losing one. While I sympathize with Net fans that continuously inflate the value of their players and their team in the face of the realities of the league, I also have a first hand (as much as a fan can) experience of what makes a winning team a winning team. There are like 5 teams in the league that can win the Championship next year and all the rest of the league is trying to figure out how to eventually become one of these teams. And there is really ONLY one way (despite the Detroit exception, which was a team with GREAT defensive players), and that is through elite, dominant, top-tier, MVP candidate players. This is the reality of the league. Bottom teams and even middle teams want to pretend that they are on the same playing field as the top 5 or so, but they aren’t. So when Net fans want to pretend that TW is a HoF potential player, or that Favors has top 5 in the league written all over him, or that they are following the Detroit model, or the Thunder model, or that they have at team that is any way as good as Denver is/was, its cold water in the face time. And this is because I am a Net fan. I know the cold water doesn’t feel good, but I also am a basketball fan. I love basketball being played a high level. And my love for the game makes we draw hard lines when people claim that players are great, or teams have a lot of potential.
This is just my perspective. You may not like or appreciate that I am a fan of one of the historically best franchises in the league, and one of the worst franchises in the league, but this is my unique perspective. It is not “shtick”. If I am relatively quiet about the positives its because in all reality a team that won only 12 games last year needs to be humble about itself. There are several players I am high on, I’m high on the coach, but I keep an eye on the prize.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know you or your motives.
All I know is, when I see a KV post I can all be assured most the following will occur:
1. The negative will be accentuated if not exaggerated
2. It will be to argue with someone or point out where someone else is wrong
3. It will generalize Net fans as pom pom wavers who think T.Willi is LBJ-lite, while not specifically calling out particular players or acknowledging that the general consensus does not feel that way
4. Realistic suggestions or alternatives of “what would KV do” are hardly offered
by Jack Handy Jr on Aug 28, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
When fans of one one of the worst teams in history (last year) start going off on how great their players are, or how great their team is going to be, making posts that lack balance, and this is a team I am a fan of, YES there is nothing else to do than take the “negative” view.
Read my posts on the Jets, which are a very good team. They are a mix of positive and negative, with a shading towards the positive.
When Net fans start posting posts like:
“I have concerns about x, but am hopeful about y” then I will be posting many more “I agree, very good point” posts.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 28, 2010 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
They were sub 500, which is not “pretty good” considering the supposed criteria of 3 top ten players (and a top 4 player). Is the idea if we get Melo we are going to be a 40-42 team? Is that what muwu is saying?
If so, I completely agree.
But muwu specifically mentioned powerhouses, LA and the Spurs, to which he seemed to be comparing the team with Melo to.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Nets will never be respected
everyone hates the nets… We will surprise this season
"I want to win, I want the team to win and I'm in complete control."
-Coach Avery Johnson.
by Andy. on Aug 27, 2010 5:18 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
so thats an average of 12.8, not bad. The knicks dont even have a ranked center on the list hhahaahah!
12.8 should get you into the playoffs.
Bench and Coaching only produces a better result than 12.8. Injuries don't count, because they can happen to any team.
Bench and Coach should get the Nets to possibly be a top 10 team by Dwyer’s numbers.
I’ll settle for the 8 seed in the East, however.
Im starting to really like this guy. He gives players the credit they deserve, some more than Nets fans. he sees Devin Harris as a very PG still, relizes just how good Lopez is, and gives Murphy, Outlaw and Morrow so credit too. Some Nets fans think Lopez and Harris dont even come close to some other combination like Collison and Granger. i see the comparison, but it just doesnt make sense
Morrow is actually #24
Interestingly, Vince Carter is #23. His inconsistency has trumped his talent at this point in his career. We were lucky to get rid of his contract before last season because if we had not we would have been just as mediocre in the present and none of this optimism about our future could ever have existed.
The Legend
Was just about to comment on this
“Yes, I had him sixth last season. Why? Ask any Nets fan who watched him in 2008-09: Carter was a borderline All-Star that season.”
Any of us during 2008-09 could have told you that Vince Carter’s ‘numbers’ weren’t making the offense any better. He’s never been a great team player, we noticed that about two years after the flash of ‘Vinsanity’ wore off, because for a few years he was still wowing the crowd.
The Magic would have been a much better and improved team WITHOUT adding Vince, I would argue he slowed the offense down and made them less dynamic- they might have even made the Finals
It's not just VC's fault even Rashard Lewis disappeared during the East Finals..
The NETS is like my own sense of direction..
The MAGIC made me realize that one..
by silenthero07 on Aug 27, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I completely disagree
If you think that Vince was not a team player his last year with the Nets then you simply were not paying attention. He continued his dominance of Joe Johnson in the playoffs (you know, the guy worth a max contract). I also thought he played well against Paul Pierce. The whole Magic team underperfomed in the ECF, can’t lay it on VC.
by ispartan on Aug 28, 2010 12:47 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
it’s amazing how people pile on Vince for the Magic getting knocked out, while Rashard Lewis stood behind the three point line, being paid a perverse amount of money, and did nothing.
Vince is too old to carry a team that has a bunch of young talent like that.
Maybe if Dwight learned how to shoot a mid range jumper, or had some type of offensive post game, the Magic wouldn’t have been beaten like dogs
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
by MrDollarBills on Aug 28, 2010 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Vince Carter is the reason that Devin Harris even made the All Star team
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
by MrDollarBills on Aug 28, 2010 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Dwyer is way too generous with Brook and a bit too generous with Devin. Brook is solid, but guys behind him have done more. He is also too generous with Amare. 3rd best? Come on. Boozer is much more solid. Bosh is too. This all seems a bit New York Centric. Ever heard of Jamier Nelson?
guys like who, behind lopez, have done more than brook lopez???
ODEN, GASOL?, NENE???
and boozer is not more solid than amare, bosh is, but not boozer
and jameer nelson isnt that good either
Why can't you just be happy that Dwyer likes Brook and for him he's the 3rd best center?
It’s his POV and it raises up the morale of Lopez and other Nets fans..
The NETS is like my own sense of direction..
The MAGIC made me realize that one..
by silenthero07 on Aug 27, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, who is interested in objectivity and facts when the morale of Net fans and their players is at stake? I think its fair to say that Lopez is the 3rd best center right now, but silly to say that if he wasn’t we should all pretend he is so that Lopez would feel better about himself.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Well it's up to him if he would live up to the expectation.
The NETS is like my own sense of direction..
The MAGIC made me realize that one..
by silenthero07 on Aug 28, 2010 5:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Bogut is no better than Lopez this season..
Bogut was severely injured, so I doubt he can be as good as before.
Arm injury, not a leg injury
Not nearly as performance threatening. And Bogut was twice the defender Brook was this season
Opposing centers put up a PER of 15.9 against Bogut, they put up a PER of 20.3 against the Lopez
PER of 20.3 is around the PER of Andrew Bynum, Lopez, Kevin Love
PER of 15.9 is around the PER of.. well I can’t see because I don’t have insider, but it’s 3 points worse than Andrei Kirilenko
A hand injury would affect your shooting touch
let alone his right hand and arm was hurt not his left hand.
he not only had a wrist injury, but also all in his arm, elbow, and wrist.
It’s not a joke. You can try it at home if you want to experience.
by Jarkid Shen on Aug 28, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
