Those teams were actually borderline-dominant defensively. Kidd was one of the greatest team defenders ever in his prime. Tough to watch in the half court.
didn't kidd have super duper star teen sensation richard jefferson? he was like iguadala level superstar iirc back then
Of course Kidd carried those teams. But that doesnt take away anything from how bad those teams were. Kidd was the only redeeming quality of those Nets teams. And he got the best out of that sorry ass squad. They just played defense and played hard and thats about it. That was their only redeeming quality lol. But when it came to offense, the players were average at best. Their most productive player on offense, Kidd, couldn't even shoot from outside. Kidd was one of my favorite players even before he entered NBA. I used to watch him play in California. He was a gamer. Great competitor. But even then, it was hard for me to watch those Nets team play. I used to watch them because of Jason Kidd. There was no other reason to watch that team play, unless you were a sorry ass Nets fan. Also, unfortunately for Kidd he didnt develop a good reliable outside shot until later stages of his career when he was on the Mavs. But all wasnt lost. His outside shooting, floor leadership, and his defense were some of the biggest reasons Mavs won the championship. If Kidd had an outside shot from early on in his career, he would have been deadly. But anyways...those Nets sucked.
Strong defensively, deadly in transition with guys who could run (Kittles, Jefferson, Martin). Agree that they were not a great half-court team, but excellent ball movement leading to back-door baskets and a high rate of assists for the team overall.
those Kings teams had a ton of offensive talent, the Nets sucked offensively the Kings could actually compete with the Lakers and were capable of beating them if healthy and the games weren’t rigged...the Nets had absolutely zero shot the Nets are a 1st round or 2nd round exit at best in the West, but because the East was so trash, they were a finals team
Those Kings teams would have cruised to 3 straight finals if they were in the east. The Mavs and Spurs likely would have as well. If I remember correctly, the Rockets went undefeated against the central division (back when there were only 4 divisions) in 01...and missed the playoffs in the west.
The Nets weren't the Kings or Mavs offensively back then, but they did rank in the top half of the league in points/game...very much the result of strong defense and a great transition game. Regarding competing with the Lakers in 2002, I agree that the Lakers were the better team, but the Nets were more constrained by their idiotic head coach, Byron Scott, who pretty much mailed it in for the Finals because he was still in love with the Lakers' organization and was resigned to losing. In the 2003 Finals, they did take 2 games from the Spurs...at that point, players knew Scott had no plan so they relied on themselves and Eddie Jordan (asst coach) to figure out how to battle. Regardless, those Nets team played excellent team basketball...beautiful to watch even if you weren't a fan.
talk to me about offensive efficiency, not ppg...they were 17th in 01-02, and 20th in 02-03...that’s garbage for a finals team all they had going for them was excellent defense, fastbreaks, and Kidd’s court vision...at the end of the day, they were the equivalent of a mid-seed WC team and would’ve been beaten in the 1st or 2nd round by any number of teams out West saying that the Lakers were the better team is putting it kindly...they were vastly superior...in an entirely different tier...same with the Kings they beat the Spurs by 2 points and by 1 point lol...that easily could’ve been another sweep the fact that they were able to make even just 1 finals is a testament to how embarrassing the EC was back then...it would be like if a team slightly better than the Pacers with a healthy Oladipo was the best team in the EC and making finals appearances
I didn't say anything that contradicts what you said. As I said before, Nets were on par with a 4-5 seed in the West, the Lakers were clearly the better team in the Finals, as were the Spurs. But that does not make the Nets "trash" as some suggest here.
lol @ comparing those pathetic Nets team to the Kings team. That Kings offense was so fluid. They were a well oiled machine on offense and their defense was not bad either. Great team coached by Adelman. The only reason they didnt win a ring was because of Dick Bavetta. Had Kings made to the finals, they would have steam rolled a Nets team that couldn't put the ball in the ocean. As pretty much everyone has said here, and will say elsewhere, that team was in the Finals because of Jason Kidd and because they were in the East. Remove the first and they wouldnt even make the playoffs. Remove them from the East and they were 1st or second round fodder if they made the playoffs. Definitely not NBA Finals worthy. Its because of **** teams like the Nets and Sixers of Iverson that I sometimes wish the NBA Finals wasn't a East/West scenario. I would rather have the two best teams in the league in different brackets.
The Nets were 1-3 against the Kings in those 2 seasons. While they got blown out in 1 of the games, two of the losses were very close (97-98 in 2001 and 102-109 in 2003), and the win was a 117-83 blowout. Kings were very much the better offensive team, but Nets were by far the better defensive team.
LOL the Leastern conference was so bad that the Nets made it They were in some of the least competitive NBA finals in the history of time
There have been plenty of 0-4 and 2-4 Finals in the history of time...in fact it's only gone to Game 7 something like 10 times since 1970...
Those Nets teams were scrubs The spurs would have waxed them like 20 to zero if there were 20 game series
Keith Van Horn was so good he made the NBA Jam cover: ...complete with his name spelled out just to be safe.
Thanks for the information, seems like it was pretty much the lack of competition in the East, but also underestimating Kidd as a leader.
I think you also have to credit the coaching staff...asst. Eddie Jordan in particular...for implementing the modified Princeton offense that he learned under Pete Carrill with the Kings. The switch from Marbury to Kidd was also huge for team chemistry and buy-in...the other players had so much more appreciation for sharing the ball after playing with Marbury. And fwiw, I will NEVER credit Byron Scott for any of the success of those teams...he was a horrible head coach (one of the reasons Kidd wanted him fired even after going to 2 consecutive finals).