The question on the mind of every MFFL these days is how their team will perform in the playoffs.

The answer: Who knows?

I know. You hope to receive a little more insight in this space – at least in the weeks Big Ed doesn't do the newsletter. Any slug with a laptop can type in who knows.

But the truth is that this Mavericks team is impossible to read. The moment they begin to flex their muscles, the moment they give you a hint that there is playoff hope after victories over Golden State, Phoenix and Utah, they lose to Portland and Seattle.

This team is good, but it's easily the most inconsistent group Avery Johnson has coached. Nothing this team has done during the regular season leads you to believe they are capable of a deep playoff run. But then, last year's team gave every indication it was braced for a long playoff run and went out in the first round.

The Mavericks won't win the title this season. But they are capable of making some noise in the playoffs. They are also capable of leaving the scene with not much more than a whimper.

We're about to find out which route they take.

David Moore

Q: Hard-chargin' DaMo News guys, we were lucky to see the Lakers and Suns games on American Forces Network. The end of both games were painful to watch. It appears the play is: Jason Kidd dribbles the ball until there is eight seconds on the shot clock, and then there is mass confusion and someone ends up rushing a shot to beat the shot clock, or Dirk is performing a one vs. three attack.

Meanwhile, the Lakers and Suns seemed to have a much easier time in getting off easier shots. I know the players and coaches say that they just aren't executing the plays needed to win, but it appears the other teams' schemes allow their players a better opportunity to execute. I haven't seen the games during the stretch of close losses, but could the inability to execute late be a function of the scheme? Even with the Mavs' win at Phoenix, the difference was Dirk making an unreal off-balance shot, and Steve Nash consistently missing 3s he normally makes, and Amare (Stoudemire) missing dunks. Am I wrong? Can this be changed, or is this offense so ingrained that it can't be changed?

Thanks gents, and keep up the good work.

Bobby "rickybobby" Linder, Officer in charge, Tactical Air Control Squadron 12, Detachment Western Pacific

MOORE: You're right. No one can accuse the Mavericks of having crisp execution at the end of close games this season. As you pointed out, even when they are successful, it appears awkward.

I don't know if you had a chance to watch the Utah game on American Forces Network, but if you did, you saw the Mavericks win that game at the end because they didn't run a play. The team had no timeouts. It pushed the ball, forced the Jazz to scramble, then found Nowitzki for an open 3-pointer in transition. Would the Mavericks have gotten a better shot if they had a timeout and had drawn up a play? I doubt it.

Opponents know what the Mavericks want to run late in games. They can sit on their half-court sets and make things difficult. The Mavericks are predictable.

They are not predictable in transition. They are not predictable when Jason Kidd has the ball in his hands, can analyze the defense and make a judgment on the run.

Should the Mavericks never again call a timeout to set up the final play? I'm not saying that. But I am saying it would be nice if Johnson put enough trust in his players that he didn't have to call a timeout in every single late-game situation.

Q: OK, this is probably more of an opinion than question. I saw great performances against the Warriors and Lakers. Here is what I saw in common. Fewer jump shots, more penetration. Josh Howard is taking far fewer 3s. Jason Terry is stepping up and shooting more from 15 to 20 feet. And Dirk gets his points in an easier fashion. That comes to the next point – closing games. The Dirk isolation plays come out, and Dirk takes shots that are too difficult. There are better options. Dirk is not Kobe or Tracy McGrady or Michael Jordan. We trusted Terry and Howard for over three quarters and stopped trusting them in the final two minutes. Get better shots in the last two minutes. While Dirk is not Karl Malone in the clutch, he isn't Kobe either. I think Avery puts too much on Dirk in the last two minutes.

Pete, Birmingham, Ala.

MOORE: Pete, we love opinions here. As long as they don't come from Big Ed, we assume they make some sense.

Your question is the ideal follow-up to what we talked about above. The Mavericks want Nowitzki to take most big shots late in games, but do they really want him taking every shot? Does their isolation offense make it easier to defend that option late in games?

Terry has shown he can hit some big shots late in games. So has Jerry Stackhouse. After that, you're struggling. Howard has fallen well short of the fourth-quarter scoring goal he set for himself this season.

All of that being said, you should get better shots with better ball movement. Maybe Eddie Jones hits an open jumper when the ball swings his way. In the isolation sets the Mavericks run late in games, it's doubtful he even touches the ball.

Predictable is fine if it's successful. The Mavericks lack of success late in games this season demands that the coaching staff take a long, hard look at what it does.

Q: Lately there is so much talk about whether the point guard or the shooting guard should defend the great shooters like Kobe or McGrady. Whatever happened to putting Josh on those guys? Seems like in earlier years that was the solution, and it worked well.

Ken Kasey

MOORE: Howard will defend those players a significant portion of the time. You will see him on them in the fourth quarter quite a bit. But the Mavericks pick their spots with this. Howard is such a key figure on offense that the team must be careful. Too much energy expended on the defensive end can impact the Mavericks' offensive efficiency. The Mavericks prefer a rotation system on great players such as Bryant and McGrady to give those two different looks and to make sure Howard still has something left on the offensive end.

Q: Devin Harris comes into the league with little fanfare, improves every year and does so even now at New Jersey by maintaining a positive attitude in extremely difficult circumstances. What are his scoring and assist stats since the trade, by the way? His steady improvement gives every indication that he may be one of the premier guards shortly. But Mark Cuban wanted gratification now. So he brings in a former superstar who gives no guarantee that his knees will last another two years, who is an erratic shooter, a shaky defender but excellent rebounder (for his position) and a superb passer. I wonder if we'll be eliminated in the first round again. If that happens, won't that mean the Mavericks subtracted from the team instead of improved it? Is there anything about this scenario that I've missed?

Tom Connors, Plano

MOORE: I don't think you've missed a thing.

The Mavericks made it to the Finals with Harris at the point. If this team fails to return to the Finals during Kidd's tenure, it will have given up too much. It will have been a bad trade. I will, however, disagree with one point you made about Kidd. He's not a shaky defender. He can't stay in front of lightning-quick point guards the way Harris did, but he's stronger, durable and does a good job of fighting through screens. He does an outstanding job of stripping the ball from bigger players down low to prevent easy baskets. As for those numbers:

Harris with Nets: 15.8 points, 6.5 assists, 3.4 rebounds.

Harris with Mavs: 14.4 points, 5.3 assists and 2.3 rebounds.

While those numbers have gone up with the Nets, it should also be pointed out that Harris' shooting percentage has dropped and his turnovers have increased.

Q: The last time the Mavs played the Nets when Kidd was a Net, he absolutely killed the Mavs by penetrating and then distributing to an open man. The only logical reason I can see this not happening with the Mavs has to be the direction given from the bench. I respect Avery as a player, man and coach, but he better learn in a hurry that a good coach adapts his system to the personnel. They say that a lot of times Nellie coaches by the seat of his pants. Based on his record, that's not a bad plan. Avery might have made victory totals faster than anyone else, but he did it with what Nellie left him, and he hadn't had a chance to totally screw it up yet.

Ken Kirby

MOORE: I don't think Johnson has screwed up anything. He has given this program a structure and defensive discipline it sorely lacked. But you're right about him needing to adapt.

I believe Nowitzki's injury forced Johnson to adapt. It forced him to get Kidd the ball in the low post – something you rarely saw before the injury – and to get more motion in the offense. It forced the team to run for easy baskets. Now that Nowitzki is back, the team is still running and you see Nowitzki as the trailer.

Most people focused on the difference in age between Kidd and Harris when discussing the merits of the trade. That's valid. But my focus was always on whether Johnson would be willing to give Kidd the freedom he deserves. Would he be willing to give up control and trust Kidd in key situations?

This remains a work in progress.

Q: I've watched Mark Cuban almost try to control the game from his courtside seats. His sparring with Avery postgame and yelling at players and refs during the game just seems like a distraction for the team. Sometimes I wish Mark Cuban would watch the game from an owner's suite, mid-level, off the court. I imagine it's an incredible distraction for the team, like a high school ballplayer's overanxious dad standing under the basket trying to control the game. I know the guy has an incredible love for his team, but maybe taking a step back and letting his players play their part could go a long way. Maybe we wouldn't have been so distracted during the Finals if Cuban had taken a step or two back.

Chris Goff

MOORE: You aren't saying anything Nowitzki hasn't said publicly. You aren't saying anything that the majority of players on the team won't tell you privately.

And guess what? Nothing will change. Cuban doesn't believe his passion is bad for the team in any way, shape or form. He has no intention of changing his behavior – and that's assuming he could if he wanted – and will argue vociferously that he's not a distraction.

I'm sure the dad standing under the basket trying to control the game says the same thing.

Q: Oh great gurus of all things Mavs. I have two questions. First, how is it that every Mavs game, but especially home games, isn't broadcast in high definition? This team is, after all, owned by Mark Cuban – inventor of HDNet ... right? I just don't understand why so many games on Ch. 21 and FSNSW are in SD, when both offer HD pictures. Second, speaking of Mark Cuban, does he own a significant share of the AAC? A friend and I were debating this the other day, because I seem to remember that when he bought the team from Ross Perot Jr., that Perot kept most of the AAC financial stake but sold the team. Is that right?

Eric in Richardson

MOORE: Glad you asked, Eric. There are probably more games broadcast in HD than you realize. A total of 54 of the 82 games were broadcast in HD. But some of the carriers don't provide HD for Fox Sports Net and TXA-21, meaning even when those games are broadcast in HD, you don't get it. There are also financial and equipment issues to complicate the matter. But hold on. Your capacity to view games in HD will grow. My thanks to Dave Evans with the Mavericks for explaining these intricacies.

As for the American Airlines Center, it is owned by the city of Dallas but managed by Cuban and the Mavericks. The real financial lure of owning any sports franchise these days is the ability to control the arena or stadium in which it plays.

Q: Just an idea on your newsletter. Why not have a "Where are they now" segment? About the old forgotten Mavs, such as Tony Dumas and Loren Meyer in the first Jason Kidd trade – good ones to start with. I would find it interesting.

Todd

MOORE: Todd, this newsletter needs all the ideas it can get – especially on the weeks Big Ed writes. Actually, Big Ed would probably be a candidate for the "Where are they now" segment since no one can remember the last time he wrote anything worth remembering.

We have done where are they now articles in the paper about former Mavericks, but nothing in this newsletter. It's something to keep in mind.