Who's the Most Disappointing?

In the NBA, patience might be a hard-to-find virtue.

Already, the Raptors have fired Sam Mitchell, though his team was 8-9. The 76ers, at 8-11, aren't happy with how their marquee acquisition, Elton Brand, has meshed with the roster. Warriors coach Don Nelson, as noted yesterday, isn't considering the playoffs a reasonable goal.

But those problems might seem minor compared to what's gone on locally. The two big injuries might provide a built-in excuse for the Wizards' struggles, but President Ernie Grunfeld said .500 was reasonable even without Gilbert Arenas and Brendan Haywood.

So are the Wizards the NBA's most disappointing team? If not, who is?

By Keith McMillan |  December 4, 2008; 11:30 AM ET
Previous: Losing Basketball Means Dead Crowds | Next: Thursday Update: Fixing Mistakes


Please email us to report offensive comments.

do you even need to ask?

Posted by: bulletsfan78 | December 4, 2008 11:44 AM

I can't really separate it from my personal investment to the wiz so they are by far the most disappointing, our record is 3rd worst league-wide (worst in east) and we made the playoffs without gil last season, we have to be very close if not the hands down winner.

Posted by: bford1kb | December 4, 2008 11:52 AM

Yea we are, but I give credit to EG for also realizing it. Hopefully, he will be more hands on and insist that ETaps Run and Gun the ball.


Dee Brown, Believe It Or Not, for this team Right Now, is the Ticket, the Answer, for this team to win games.

Ernie Grunfield, Come Hard, I am pulling for you.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | December 4, 2008 11:57 AM

The Pistons have to be on top of that list (at least among the teams listed). The Iverson trade has pretty much fallen flat, while Billups looks like he could be the key that drives Denver to a long playoff run.

Disappointment is a function of reality failing to meet expectations, so the Wizards really can't be more than mildly disappointing, because it's unlikely that anyone outside of the diehard believers had anything more that mediocre expectations.

Posted by: kalo_rama | December 4, 2008 12:00 PM

Again, how can you expect to lose your best offensive and best defensive players and still be the same team? Take those 2 off ANY team in the lague and they'll be worse than we are. We actually have the talent to overcome it to an extent if the coaches put us in a position to succeed. I think Tapscott is moving in the right direction.

Disappointing, no. Frustrating, yes.

Posted by: original_mark | December 4, 2008 12:25 PM

LarryInClintonMD should be head coach. Run Run Run.

If we gotta lose, I'd rather lose exciting than lose boring.

Posted by: original_mark | December 4, 2008 12:27 PM

I have to side with Mark's comments BUT we have lost too many games where we gave it away and partially due to bad coaches decisions so I lay blame all over. I dont know whats going to work at this point, we are hopeless until Gil AND Brendan return

why dont you guys join up on the forums so we can have more in depth discussions?


Posted by: WizardsExtreme | December 4, 2008 12:39 PM

Yeah LarrinClintonMD you keep pulling for EG,a GM that can't sign our best bench player(Mason)from last year, a GM that; overpays for a guard(3knee oper.in 17 mo.)and a forward with no lost post game to speak of.and hires a coach who can't even draw up a play during timeouts!! YEAH YOU KEEP PULLING FOR HIM CAUSE I'M SURE THAT'S GOING TO WORK! LMAO

Posted by: dargregmag | December 4, 2008 12:39 PM

I saw some of Jordan's influence on Tabscott near the end of the game. Why in the world would you have Stevenson and AD in the backcourt when you needed important stops and Roy was killing you?????

Where was Juan Dixon or better yet DMac to go out and check Roy??? AD is clearly still hurt, so why is he still trying to play??? You can give those minutes to Juan Dixon.

As hard as I have been on Dee Brown I have to give him some credit because the little dude has now played 2 good games in a row. If you noticed when he was in there he pressured the ball on the perimeter and made it difficult for the Blazers to get into their offensive sets.

Why he was no where to be found in the 4th quarter I do not know. If it was a size issue and Tabscott being afraid he was going to get posted up, so what? Let them do it first and then adjust.

***** Tabscott needs to sit AD down for 10 to 15 games and give his minutes to Juan Dixon. Also, AB's game is coming along; he needs more minutes. But on the flip side he needs to stop trying to be the "iceman" and finger rolling everything and instead start attacking the rim like the "rainman" used to do.....

Posted by: BulletsFever | December 3, 2008 9:49 PM


Posted by: BulletsFever | December 4, 2008 12:40 PM

BulletsFever, I was wondering the same thing. I hate when AD is in the game. He slows down the offense with his obsession for over dribbling. Dude will dribble the clock down to 8 sec or so and then decide to pass it which makes the shooter have to rush his shot. And 9 times out of ten no points are scored. The same lineup that started the game and that had us 9 points ahead shold have closed out the game. Please Tapscott, don't put AD in the game when the game is on the line! Auggh!

Posted by: ivyleague | December 4, 2008 1:13 PM

hey everyone come over to http://www.wizardsextreme.com . its free 2 try! kinda like coach tap

Posted by: prescrunk | December 4, 2008 1:20 PM

I have been shocked with how much everything is the same, or even worse, under Tabscott. What happening to "shortening the rotation" and giving the young players more burn. I don't want to see Songaila, AD, Etan & Stevenson.

I want to see McGee, Blanche, Mcguire & Young. If your not going to go young and teach why fire Jordan. They need a NY Knick rotation of 8 guys, play Blatche & Mcgee until they both foul out.

Posted by: klondike_dave | December 4, 2008 1:24 PM

This whole idea that Tapscott was brought in to "teach" the kids is just a preemptive defense mechanism that the anti-Jordan crowd came up with so that they'd have some cover when Tapscott proved just as incapable of squeezing wins out of this sorry bunch as Jordan was.

They didn't fire Jordan because he wasn't "teaching" or "going young." They fired him because the team only won 1 game and something needed to change. But since they couldn't trade any of the motley collection of talent they've assembled, canning the coach was the only substantive change they could make.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Gunfeld or Pollin said anything to Tapscott that could be interpreted as "we don't care if you lose as long as you lose the way we like it" is drinking some strong kool-aid.

Posted by: kalo_rama | December 4, 2008 2:19 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company